1998-04-063816REPS249301998-04-06Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) intends to seek my indulgence.Miscellaneous249312:31:002493Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to make a statement on the subject matter of the resolution relating to me that was passed by the House on our last sitting day.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday I sought to make a statement explaining my position on the remark I had made that morning about the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), but was denied leave by the government to do so. Given the attention that this matter has continued to receive, I think it would be appropriate for me to take that opportunity now.The trouble with using colourful words is that they sometimes take on an unintended life of their own. My words were more colourful and wounding than they should have been, and I very much regret that they have been taken in a number of quarters as inflaming the very racial tension that I have spent a large part of my life trying to defuse. I have said in the past, both inside and outside parliament, and say again now, that I do not think John Howard is personally racist. But I have also said that he does have a long record of real insensitivity on racial issues and, for better or worse, I saw what I believed to be another demonstration of that insensitivity in his exuberant reaction in this parliament to the news of the Hindmarsh Island Aboriginal women's defeat.My doorstop response was triggered and reinforced by the newspaper photographs that appeared prominently that morning in the Canberra Times and the Age. The Age photograph and one of those in the Canberra Times series now appear to have been misleading, but I emphasise that my response was a reaction to what I saw happen in the House, quite apart from any photographic record.In terms of the words I actually used, I have been concerned that some people have interpreted my use of the word `blackfellas' as itself an offensive reference to indigenous Australians. The point needs to be made that `blackfella' is a word that can be used either sympathetically and affectionately or in a denigratory and derogatory way. It all depends on the context and who is using it. Aboriginal Australians use the term all the time about themselves, in talking between themselves and with sympathetic white fellas and, in my experience, do not object when someone uses the term in the kind of context that I used it in here, which was one of obviously wholehearted sympathy for Aboriginal people. I hope that, having regard to my own parliamentary record and very close association with Aboriginal people going all the way back to my role in the establishment of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Victoria in the early 1970s, no-one could seriously think that I could be personally capable of casting a racist slur against any indigenous Australian.A number of commentators have seen my remark last week, and the government's aggressively political reaction to it, as a sad foretaste of what may be to come if the Wik stand-off continues and we have a race-based double dissolution election. I fear they are probably right. It was no part of my intention last week to make any such point but, if that point has now been made, it is one to which we should all now pay close regard. I simply hope that we can redouble our efforts in the short remaining time available to find solutions to the native title issue that are both workable and acceptable for the key stakeholders—indigenous Australians, miners and pastoralists—although I have to say that what has been said recently by government spokesmen cannot give anyone much hope that the government is in a mood seriously to go down that path.I have always believed from the outset of this debate that, if we could lower the politi cal temperature, with everyone focusing on the real issues at stake, such an outcome would be readily achievable. To the extent that my remark—which was not the product of any calculation, but simply my own very strong emotional feeling on the whole race issue—raised rather than lowered the political temperature at this delicate time, I do regret it.12:35:002494Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, this is a mealy-mouthed statement which does not go nearly to the point which was raised in the parliament last week. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) had any decency, he would utter these words: `I withdraw and I apologise to the Prime Minister.' That is all he had to say. All he had to do was come in here today and say that he withdrew them and that he apologised for them. He has come in with a two-page prepared statement which is carefully designed to do neither of those things and, as such, is totally unacceptable to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), to the government and, more importantly, to the people of Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes out that this was some very strong emotional reaction. He says:. . . not the product of any calculation, but simply my own very strong emotional feeling . . . This was a premeditated attack at a doorstop—a very long doorstop. Obviously, having thought about the comment for some time, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got up—and it was no emotional outburst—and said:I do find it somewhat tacky, however, that the Prime Minister reacted with the exuberance that he so obviously did when he was given the news of the 5:1 decision against Aboriginal women.A premeditated statement. He went on:This bloke seems to be never so happy as when he's bashing blackfellas.This was no emotional response; it was a prepared one-liner glib attempt to get a headline, which he did. If he had any decency he would be up here apologising and withdrawing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the absurd comment:I do not think John Howard is personally racist. Is the Prime Minister supposed to feel thankful to you that you have made that statement this morning—as if your clearing of him has given him a new sort of moral certification in this particular debate?The fact of the matter is that you tried to put the slur on him. It was a premeditated attempt at a cheap, glib headline. You have been shocked by the universal distaste of the Australian people and the media commentators in response to your statement, and what you should have done today is withdrawn and apologised. Until you do so, you will not have taken away the stain and the slur which you have sought to put on this debate.Committees24942494249412:38:002494Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Australia and ASEAN: Managing change , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—This report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Australia and ASEAN: Managing Change —is its first in this area since 1984. I thank Margaret Swieringa, who is in the chamber today, for her work in its preparation.As all members are aware, a profound change has occurred in the region. The optimism of the early part of this inquiry that ASEAN economies would continuously grow and prosper has been tempered by the currency crisis which began in Thailand in July last year and has since affected, in varying degrees, all of East Asia. The crisis has brought expectations of growth back to more standard levels, has highlighted the complexities of achieving sustainable development and has emphasised the importance of institutional development and good governance in that process. It has thrown down a challenge to ASEAN—its slow consensual style, its decisiveness and its cohesion.The crisis also has altered the strategic outlook for the region, with the strategic uncertainty inherent in the reorientation of great power politics at the end of the Cold War exacerbated by the possible threat to internal political stability in some states. The decline in economic circumstances is likely to worsen the broader security threats of transborder crime, illegal movements of peoples, the outflow of refugees, disputes over environmental degradation and competition for resources. Many of these are issues of concern already on the agenda of the ASEAN regional forum, whose importance is recognised and supported by the committee.The inquiry took a considerable body of evidence in the early part of 1997 which stressed the opportunities in the region for Australian trade. Australia's natural, geographically based connection to the `fastest growing region in the world' appeared to ensure the expansion of Australian export trade. The report deals in some detail with an analysis of the bilateral and sectoral trade relationship between Australia and the region, including regional trade liberalisation under both AFTA and APEC.The committee does not underestimate the seriousness of the current problems or the challenges they pose. These are not simple or painless matters for countries to resolve. The committee was able to take some evidence on the possible causes of the problems and on the response of the IMF and regional governments. The committee endorses the Australian government's readiness to participate in the IMF packages offered to the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. However, with such rapidly developing circumstances over recent weeks, our analysis is simply a snapshot. The seminar held in Parliament House on 19 March and the seminar report will elaborate on our preliminary findings, particularly in respect of Indonesia.The report remains optimistic about long-term trends. It concludes:Despite the recent economic difficulties in the region, which are likely to result in depressed demand for Australian exports in key ASEAN markets, the prospects for continued growth in two way trade in the long run remain solid.However, in other spheres of our relationship with the region, some concerns were expressed. Many witnesses stressed the importance of paying more attention to the social, cultural and political relationships between Australia and regional countries. Areas of weakness were perceived in bilateral tensions over political style or the differences in values, particularly human rights, declining cultural representation or the paucity of expenditure on regional cultural activity.Strongly criticised was the withdrawal of our most natural communication with the region through the closure of Radio Australia. The committee strongly urges a reconsideration of the decision to close the Cox Peninsula transmitters.The committee believes that Asian studies and student exchanges, both of Asian students coming to Australia and of Australians studying in Asia, should be enhanced and improved, and that literary, artistic and cultural exchanges with the region be increased. To this end, the committee endorses the new international cultural council and hopes that it will be adequately funded.In its 30th anniversary year, which ASEAN began as a self-confident, independent and forceful regional voice, the economic crisis has provided a challenge to the association's ability to retain its cohesion and to act decisively in the interest of the whole region. This report lays down some of these challenges. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am glad to see the honourable member for Lalor back in the House, and I trust his wife is now feeling somewhat better.12:43:002495Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONESKH4LalorALP00—Yes, a little, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the report on Australia and ASEAN prepared by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This was the particular responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor).The period between 1967 and 1997 was very much a success story for ASEAN. Its growth figures were extraordinarily high and it was not uncommon for some ASEAN countries to have figures of between six and eight per cent GDP growth annually. But since October 1997, not as a direct result of the holding of our inquiry but certainly as our inquiry developed, there was a tremendous change in what we were hearing from witnesses. After October 1997 things in ASEAN seemed to change rather dramatically. As we said in our conclusions, `two ASEANs emerged in the course of this inquiry: one, at the beginning, prosperous, confident and exhibiting uninterrupted growth; the other, after October 1997, uncertain, demoralised, suffering sharp decline in economic indicators and intently seeking an understanding of the cause of the crisis and the nature of the solution'.The Asian crisis that emerged at that time changed completely many of the assessments the committee had received in submissions and evidence to that date. I thank heaven that we did not produce the report about a year ago—it would not have had a very long shelf life. No doubt the committee would have shared in the ringing prophecies about what would happen as ASEAN went from strength to strength.The report will make valuable reading—perhaps disconcerting in some embassies in the region. We drew attention to matters of considerable concern. For example, paragraph 13 of our conclusions states:The crisis in the economies of the region demonstrates that corruption is a serious political and economic problem. Its cause rests in the political systems where there is little transparency, accountability and scrutiny; the lack of a free press, a viable opposition and an independent judiciary. These fundamental civil and political rights are the means by which corruption, while not eliminated, is kept at bay. There is commonly expressed, in Australia and in the region, the view that the political and economic systems can be compartmentalised, that human rights and trade are not connected, and that a country can adopt western economics and reject broader democratic accountability: this appears, in the light of current events, to be a fallacy. The experiences of the past months in Asia have had antecedents in capitalist economies on a number of occasions. Both this experience and the clamour for reform in Thailand, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea illustrate that, while the problems of greed and the abuse of power are not uniquely Asian problems, they are universal; the solutions of fairness and equity are not Western, they are universally understood to be valuable.One subject in the report was the race debate affecting Australia's image in the region. We pointed to the irony that, at a time when the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) was receiving extensive media coverage in South-East Asia for her misinformation, the government chose this time as a budget economy, part of its campaign against the ABC, to pull back from its responsibilities to provide Radio Australia and Australia Television services for the region. I echo the remarks of the honourable member for Groom when he pointed to our recommendation that the government restore the Cox Peninsula transmitters to full operation for the use of Radio Australia.If Australia is to engage in the region, and especially with ASEAN, we cannot give conflicting signals and say we are interested in ASEAN while at the same time we are pulling back as if we were not interested in informing the people of the region about the quality of life, the system of government that we have and the things about Australia that we are very proud of. If there is one consequence to come out of this which is aimed at the Australian government in particular, it is that it recognise its responsibility to restore and, indeed, enhance the way it communicates information to South-East Asia through both television and radio.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Groom wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?2496Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.Mr Speaker, may I say to the House that this is an important report at a critical time, and I hope that those who control the agenda in this House, and indeed in the Main Committee, will give it some priority. I think it engenders a lot of comment from a lot of members in this place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Delegation Reports2497249712:50:002497Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Mr Speaker, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 6th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, from 7 to 10 January 1998.The APPF is now a well-established regional organisation to which Australia has made a strong contribution since its beginning at meetings in Singapore and Canberra in 1991. Previous annual meetings have been held in Japan, the Philippines, Mexico, Thailand and Canada, and the organisation has evolved its own corporate practices and procedures over this time. The underlying principles have remained, however, and have been strengthened at each annual meeting. These principles include a commitment to frank and constructive dialogue between parliamentarians from the 26 member countries representing over 45 per cent of the world's population. These countries are from Asia, Oceania and both North America and South America, and they include superpowers, G7 nations and smaller Pacific Ocean island states.Yasuhiro Nakasone, the former Japanese Prime Minister, who is President of APPF, emphasised in his opening remarks the importance of the APPF as a parliamentary forum with representatives of governing and non-governing parties. This broadens the views that are expressed and explored.I can inform the House that there were certainly free and frank exchanges of views in Seoul. The agenda covered a wide range of matters. These included the fourth ASEAN regional forum; the Korean Peninsula situation; Cambodia; APEC's Vancouver meetings; the Asian currency crisis; regional economic cooperation; the environment and other global issues such as energy, education, drugs, terrorism, cultural exchanges and corruption; the Ottawa convention; and Myanmar. There is a deal of interest within member countries about the actions taken towards implementation of the positions agreed on these matters. I urge members, in consideration of these resolutions, to have this in mind.The delegation was led by Bill Taylor, the honourable member for Groom. I was the deputy leader and the other members were Paul Neville, the honourable member for Hinkler, and Senator John Quirke of South Australia. I thank all members of the delegation for their comradeship. I particularly congratulate the honourable member for Groom on the way he conducted himself as leader of the delegation. He led by example and made sure that we made a very full contribution.We were advantaged by the fact that the honourable member for Groom had attended the executive meeting late last year of APPF and was known to many of the key players at the conference. The delegation was also served by Mr Peter Gibson as secretary and I am pleased to see that he is in the chamber at the moment. Peter's long and continued involvement with APPF as secretary to various delegations was another important fact because Peter also was well known to other members of APPF.The delegation was given strong support in Korea by the Australian Ambassador, Mr Mack Williams, and by the counsellor at the embassy, Mr Richard Ryan. We were grateful for this and for the excellent support provided before our departure in the form of high quality briefing material provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Parliamentary Library. The delegation highlights that Mr Williams is soon to retire from the department. We take this opportunity to congratulate him on his long and very highly valuable service to the nation and we wish him and his wife, Carla, a very happy, peaceful and healthy retirement. I would also like to place on record our congratulations to the national assembly of the Republic of Korea not only for the way in which they were fine hosts but also for their efficient conduct of the meeting.The Australian delegation participated fully in the plenary sessions and I believe made a significant contribution. We acted as a team, whether it was in the executive committee, the plenary or the working committee to develop the joint communique. I was appointed as rapporteur to that joint communique working committee, which was a lesson for me in high international diplomacy as a war of words broke out about the way in which the final draft communique was being presented to the plenary session.QT4FILINGMr Filing—I bet it was nothing like the Victorian ALP.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—Even though I have had those experiences I would tell the honourable member for Moore that this was still a very educative process. It was a reflection on the way in which APPF operates that those problems were ironed out in an amicable and very good way.Mr Deputy Speaker, this was my first experience of an APPF meeting but I know you and your predecessors have given strong support to the APPF over the years. This year's meeting in Seoul was pleased to accept Australia's invitation to host the eight annual meeting in Sydney in January 2000 and this was widely seen as an example of Australia's commitment to this important regional organisation. I commend the report to the House.12:55:002498Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am happy to endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), who was deputy leader of the Australian delegation to the 6th Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Seoul in the second week of January this year. It was quite a balanced team, which was led by the member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and included the member for Scullin, me and Senator John Quirke. The delegation put a concise view on many issues and I compliment the opposition members in articulating government policy in an even-handed and sensitive way.I think the forum was a great lesson for all of us. To be in Korea and work with Koreans and other Asian delegates at the height of the Asian economic meltdown added a true to life relevance to what we were doing. The relative value of the won to the Australian dollar had halved in the previous four months and, while we were there, there were daily fluctuations. We were there in the interregnum between the two presidents: Kim Dae-Jung was about to take office from Kim Young-Sam. The dynamic of that change and the strong stance on economic issues was becoming evident at the time of the forum.While we were there both Qantas and Ansett announced a suspension of flights to Korea, one recently arrived flight carrying only seven passengers. There were two lessons in this for us as Australians: one, the intensity with which Korea can harness national sentiment and, in the medium term, correct the direction of its economy; and, two, in the short term there might be some pain for Australian industry and exporters.Yet another dynamic that was evident was the all pervasive concern over the North Korean situation. No doubt honourable members have been aware of the perilous state of the North Korean economy and recent periods of near famine. As the member for Groom pointed out at the plenary session devoted to this and the related subregional matters, Australia had contributed $18.5 million to economic and food aid. He also stressed Australia's commitment to the four-nation dialogue on reunification.With the per capita income of South Korea at $US10,200 and North Korea's at $US957, and with the South Korean-American forces totalling 540,000 and North Korea's army standing at a million, we should not be cavalier or ho hum in our approach to this delicate situation. As delegates our sensitivity was heightened by a visit to the Armistice Village at Panmunjom. It was a chilling reminder to us of the fragility of peace and the price that still has to be paid to maintain it. I must admit that I came away with a healthy respect for the US and South Korean forces. So against these twin local backgrounds of meltdown and Korean Peninsula politics, the sensitivities of the 25 delegations were well focused.We debated the Cambodian situation, the entry of Colombia into the organisation, the World Trade Organisation, drugs, drug trafficking and money laundering, which was Australia's major agenda item at the conference and one in which the member for Groom played a key part. With regard to the El Nino and climate change, which I participated in having had first-hand knowledge of its effects on Australia and in particular on the central Queensland coast, we were able to play an important part in directing the forum away from yet another international regulatory bureaucracy and enticing them to enhance the role of the World Meteorological Organisation.Our effectiveness as a group was enhanced by the administrative leadership of our secretary, Peter Gibson, currently at the table, and advice from Mr Richard Ryan of the Australian embassy. It is also worthy of note that we were well supported by the Canadian delegation, which held similar views to our own and with whom we enjoyed fellowship on a number of occasions.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—You had a good drink?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Indeed we did. Our attendance was timely and the resolutions pertinent to a number of highly sensitive issues globally. For my own part, I welcomed the opportunity to be part of that delegation. I learnt more about those issues in four days than one could learn in a library of books.Committees24992499249913:00:002499Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report on treaties, tabled on 25 November 1997 and 3 March 1998, entitled Thirteenth report , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—The report I have just tabled deals with eight topics although, with the limited time we now have available, I will deal with only three. Firstly, it deals with the 1996 protocol which will replace the so-called London Convention on Sea Dumping and, related to it, an amendment to the convention as a result of the cessation of the dumping at sea of the spoil from the mining of jarosite.In the International Year of the Oceans, it is appropriate for us to table a report which will reduce the amount and type of material which can be dumped at sea. The 1996 protocol will replace the London Convention when sufficient nations have expressed consent to be bound to the new agreement. We can only hope that this occurs sooner rather than later.Secondly, we have reported on amendments to the schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which were agreed at Monaco in October 1997. A number of important issues confront the International Whaling Commission (IWC) at its 50th annual meeting next month in Oman. Indeed, some would say that the commission's future is increasingly called into doubt by pressures such as aboriginal whaling and continued whaling by nations such as Japan and Norway. Attempts are continuing to reach a consensus on fundamental questions about the revised management strategy which evaluates whale population levels and, if resolved, would be used to set quotas for whaling.As we point out in the report, attitudes to whales and to whaling have changed since the IWC was set up in 1946. To remain relevant, the commission must face up to a number of issues, set out in the report, to the satisfaction of a majority of its members.Thirdly, we have considered the Agreement on the Neutral Truce Monitoring Group in Bougainville. This is an important matter for Papua New Guinea, for Australia, indeed for the region, but it is vital for the people of Bougainville where there has been fighting since 1989.Australian Defence Force and non-military personnel were involved in the truce monitoring group (TMG), and they performed in a professional way which was a credit to themselves and to their country. We were particularly impressed by the contribution the women members of the TMG were able to make. Bougainville is a matriarchal society, and the women in the villages invited the women members of the TMG to talk over the issues in a way which appears to have made a significant contribution to the peace process. The TMG may become a peace monitoring group after 30 April, and the committee hopes that Australian personnel can continue to remain involved in the peace process in Bougainville.Once again, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and their positive attitudes to a heavy workload, reflected in the tabling of 13 reports since September 1996. At present, we have another three inquiries at various stages of completion, with a fourth to be taken up as a result of a tabling last week.The reference of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment to the Committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) is generating much interest right around the country. We look forward to public hearings commencing next month in Canberra.The reference of the Minister for Justice (Mr Williams) of the draft enabling legislation for the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is under way. Indeed, there was a further hearing this morning here in Canberra. Additional hearings are scheduled for Sydney and Melbourne later this month.All this could not have been achieved without the cooperative spirit of all members, in both Houses and on all sides of politics. I thank them all, and commend the report to the House.13:05:002500Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My comments relate to the amendments to the schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which is referred to in the thirteenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. History reveals that Tasmania was the home of one of the world's major whaling peoples and built its early economy on its connection with whaling and the sea. Tasmania has long since finished with its whaling days, but it still retains the artefacts and memories of those heroic days.Now Australia believes in the moratorium on commercial whaling and the establishment of the Southern Ocean sanctuary for whales that was introduced in 1994. We also consider the International Whaling Commission to be the most appropriate forum for pursuit of improved international efforts to conserve whales.It was interesting to look at different countries perspectives on the preservation of whales. The Norwegians have a long history of whaling and like whale meat, but I understand they sell the blubber to Japan. The Japanese too are keen to see some whaling continue for trade purposes and for local consumption. So there is still a commercial interest in whale catching and its exploitation. That is to be dealt with when this convention has been through the commission.While it is appropriate that we look for the establishment of a global whaling sanctuary, we need some ability to allow aboriginal subsistence whaling for those people who still have it as part of their culture—the Chukotka people in Alaska being a case in point. It is about these people and our European reaction to whaling that I wish to speak.I have a Tasmanian friend by the name of Kay Ilmar, currently living in Barrow, on the north coast of Alaska. She has experienced her first whale `catch' with the Eskimo community. This is someone who has been anti-whaling for most of her life and is suddenly confronted with her stepchildren's heritage. I would like to share her comments with the House. She says:Dave came home from working late last night at round 10 p.m. to tell me that the Eskimos had brought in a whale and it was on the beach just near here. It is the first whale caught of the Fall Whaling Season and so we walked along to take a look. There were people everywhere, it seemed like half the town was out. I felt a little uneasy we approached, feeling a sadness. It was much bigger than I expected, seemed twelve foot high and apparently measured 44 ft 8 inches long. Big and black, only a few barnacles on the end of the tail. There was a big crowd circling it, the Eskimos seemed so excited, taking photos while it was measured. Children everywhere. I stood amongst them, watching their reactions, absorbing the immensity of it. Imagining it swimming around at peace. The evening was warm, well warm for here. I wasn't cold but I'd rugged up well. Then a man with a knife that looked like a big hockey stick, blade on the end, climbed up onto the top and began to cut. Carving big slabs in sections, while others on the beach pierced big hooks into what had been sliced from the top and pulled with rope as the blubber was dragged back off it. The captain of that whaling crew keeps a large proportion, the remainder is distributed to the Eskimo families here and in the outlying villages of the North Slope. It is given, not sold.I talked about my mixed feeling, about my anti-whaling stand, but still trying to understand and accept the Eskimo heritage. They've been doing this for as long as anyone can remember, it's their life.She continues:It's morning now and from the window I can see it, a bloodied carcass on the beach, people still around it. Not much left. Jennifer—her stepdaughter—told me earlier that they would use a bulldozer to take it much further down the beach away from the town so that if the polar bears come in to pick over it, they'll be away from the houses. The local news reported the catch on this morning's broadcast.Coming to terms with your own history and coming to terms with the current culture is what allows these people to be able to harvest their whales. We did harvest our whales and we used them for all our daily needs, much like the Eskimos. That should be taken into account, as it is within this treaty. There is some concern about the difference in the killing methods; that they should be more humane. As we improve technology, should we allow Aborigines to use new technologies to undertake their whaling? (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Groom wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a further occasion?2501Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.2501250113:11:002501Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the committee, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority , together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—The report that I am tabling today is the third evaluation of the operations of the National Crime Authority by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. It is the culmination of a comprehensive inquiry by the parliamentary joint committee over the past 14 months, following its decision in late 1996 that such an evaluation was necessary. This was a demanding inquiry for members of the parliamentary joint committee both in terms of the magnitude of the issues and the time required to ensure the comprehensiveness of the inquiry.I wish to thank and commend my parliamentary colleagues for their valuable contributions to this important task. I am particularly pleased that the deputy chairman of the committee, the member for Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe), the Independent member for Moore (Mr Filing) and the member for Bowman (Mrs West) are in the chamber today for this occasion. I also wish to acknowledge my gratitude for the contributions of witnesses. The majority of the committee members are in agreement with the main thrust of the report and of its recommendations. I have no problem with the addendum of the Australian Democrats. I understand Senator Conroy's desire to make a statement about matters of personal concern to him. I should say, however, that I am perplexed by Senator Ferris's minority report. Finally, I wish to thank the following members of the secretariat who gave the PJC invaluable assistance during the inquiry: Mick McLean, the committee secretary; Yvonne Marsh; Debbie McMahon; Ann See; Richard Selth; Nadine Smith and Nola Webb. I say quite unequivocally that these people made an enormous effort, way beyond the call of duty.Several factors contributed to the PJC's decision to conduct the evaluation. It is well known that the predecessor PJC in November 1991 tabled a report on its evaluation of the NCA which was entitled Who is to Guard the Guards?. What is not so well known is that not one single amendment of the NCA's Act followed from that report, despite the obvious merit of many of its proposed reforms. Further, the environment of law enforcement had undergone significant reform in the subsequent six-year period, with both institutional changes and substantial budget cuts.The NCA has never been far from controversy during its 13-year history. However, during 1996 the authority's operations had come under particular scrutiny as a result of two adverse court rulings—initially in the Federal Court and later in the Victorian Supreme Court. The latter was, of course, the decision to acquit Mr John Elliott and others of charges of theft and conspiracy to defraud after the trial judge had ruled the prosecution's evidence inadmissible. In all the circumstances, the parliamentary joint committee felt that another comprehensive evaluation was timely. The parliamentary joint committee's inquiry received some 50 submissions and it conducted 11 public hearings, including in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra. The report makes 30 recommendations.The PJC's report reflects the weight of evidence received during its inquiry. It has found that the authority is highly regarded, and a wide range of groups were strongly supportive of its role in coordinating the national effort to fight organised crime. The NCA's supporters included the Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement partners, particularly the police services, directors of public prosecutions and representatives of the bar associations and law societies. Few witnesses criticised the operations of the NCA, and even civil liberties movement representatives have now moderated the intensity of the concerns voiced in the NCA's formative days.The scale of organised crime is unquantifiable, but the parliamentary joint committee did not hear from a single witness who felt that the problem of organised crime had diminished during the past 13 years to the point where the NCA had outlived its usefulness. To the contrary, the PJC was constantly reminded of the scale of the illicit drugs problem in Australia, the damage that the drug trade is doing to the fabric of our society and the need to be ever vigilant against the activities of the drug barons.The PJC has concluded that the NCA is needed now more than ever. At the end of the day it is the parliamentary joint committee's expectation that what will result from this inquiry is a more effective national crime body to take on the law enforcement challenges of the new millennium.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for McPherson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I seek leave to present my tabling statement in full.Leave granted.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills25022502Bill presented by Mr Zammit.13:15:002502Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I bring forward my bill, to be known as the Sydney Airports Bill 1998, with one, and one only, overarching objective: to take the whole issue of aircraft noise and air pollution away from the political process which is susceptible to political manipulation of winner-take-all stakes with the government of the day determining flight paths to favour their friends and colleagues and dumping on others, even though they may be on the same side, for political expediency. On the day that I resigned from the Liberal Party—that is, 9 February 1998—over the broken promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to me and to my electorate prior to the 1996 federal election, I stated the following:The issue of aircraft noise is beyond politics. It is not about maximising the use of an airport to the detriment of the health, wellbeing and lifestyle of people. It is not about a winner-take-all attitude by political leaders who redesign flight paths to favour themselves and their mates. It is all about justice and equity for the people. The people in every instance must come first.Before I go any further, I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary staff and Parliamentary Library staff for their tremendous cooperation. I also want to thank the representatives of the peak anti-aircraft noise groups and environmental experts from ECAG, CAAG, SOS, NWRAG as well as Graeme Harrison, Henry Richards, Frank Inga, Rod Hibbard, Peter Hicks, Alan Bonham, Janette Barros, Phillip Anderton, Gretchen Fitzgerald, John Berry, Alister Simington, Phillip Lingard, Sue Hogan, Tony Williams and many others with whom I have consulted, and whom I will acknowledge in my second reading speech.My bill becomes public today. I welcome any constructive comments, which will be noted and which will be considered for incorporation after my second reading speech. The issue of flight paths at airports around Australia will not only grow in intensity but exacerbate to unmanageable proportions, the likes of which we have never seen before in our nation. Within the next five to 10 years, we will be seeing more and more challenges in the courts and the pitting of Australians against other Australians who are aircraft noise and pollution affected—that is, those who have benefited against those who have been cheated and conned by the government of the day.I make two observations that are directly relevant to my assertions. Firstly, in regard to the flight paths, it is no longer just a case of the noise of the planes affecting people; it is even more the case that—incontrovertible evidence is piling higher and higher—emissions from these planes may cause, at the very least, respiratory tract infections. In more serious cases, cancer is the result. The medical and psychological effects on children are, on a percentage basis, potentially even worse. Secondly, litigation has already commenced on a major scale—in fact, Woollahra Municipal Council has undertaken action in the Federal Court of Australia against the federal Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile). It should also be noted that not only have I been subpoenaed but also the Prime Minister has been subpoenaed.In this bill, I propose the establishment of an independent apolitical authority, consisting of judges drawn from outside the greater Sydney area who would take advice from federal and state public institutions, airlines, airport authorities, local resident groups and regional airline operators. I also wish to state that the member for Calare (Mr Andren) will be seconding this motion. I pause to say that, at the meeting held in my office on Thursday night of last week, as previously mentioned, there was overwhelming and unanimous support for guarantees for the regional airlines to operate at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and great dismay expressed at the attempts by the government to squeeze them out through the back door by a dramatic increase in landing charges and attempts to have them replaced with heavy jets with further deleterious consequences for the people of Sydney.The proposed authority would consider the advice and evidence tendered to it and then make appropriate planning decisions, particularly on matters related to flight path locations around Sydney and the location and operation of any second major airport. The process, by its very nature, would be an open one and its success would be guaranteed by objective judicial duty. I have thought about this bill for a long time. I have consulted widely, and there seems to be overwhelming support for this bill to be put forward. As the situation can only get worse as more and more flights come in and out of Australia, I urge the government, in the spirit of goodwill, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to have a look at the bill and to try to make sure that the people in Sydney and around Australia who are airport noise affected must come first, before profits.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business2504250413:21:002504Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I 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.I rise to speak to this motion listed under my name. I do so not just to raise awareness but also to put forward some positive suggestions to help alleviate what has become a very serious problem for many small rural towns and a growing number of urban areas. I do so in the hope that members of the opposition will put aside any political differences and support this motion. I hope that I will get bipartisan support because the effect that bank closures are having on people in rural towns and metropolitan areas, on communities and on small business in those communities is now so severe that I believe that all of us in this place must put our political differences aside in order to bring a national focus to this problem and, in doing so, provide some alternatives to the current intransigence of the policy of the major banks in this regard.There is no doubt that bank closures have significant economic and social costs in our society. There is now abundant evidence available to prove this. The Centre for Australian Financial Institutions report, produced for credit care and entitled Economic and social impacts of the closure of the only bank branch in rural communities, provides a plethora of evidence of the impact bank closures have had in rural towns. I believe the picture described in this report applies to small urban communities as well.This report reveals that almost one in three branches of major banks in regional Australia, typified by areas like my electorate, have closed between 1993 and 1996. The major banks have displayed a clear lack of concern for the needs of their customers and the communities in which they live by closing the only bank in town, such as the ANZ in Hurstbridge and the Commonwealth in Warburton, and forcing residents to travel long distances to access banking services.Urban and semi-urban closures, such as the ANZ in South Morang or the Westpac in Diamond Creek, are equally distressing for the frail and elderly in those communities, who need face to face banking services and are unable to cope with electronic banking, which in any event may not cater for their loan, mortgage or pension inquiries. Individuals suffer the practical difficulties of a lack of ready cash or, alternatively, being forced to hold too much cash on their person or in their homes. This poses a real security threat for these people. EFTPOS services from local traders do not alleviate the loss of a branch as they cannot handle deposits or non-transaction banking inquiries, while withdrawal limits are often too restrictive.Further findings from the CAFI report found that 65 per cent of people indicated that saving was more difficult; there has been a loss of individual investment income from $100 to $2,000 a year due to loss of services; 50 per cent said credit now costs more; 70 per cent said obtaining credit was more difficult; and 75 per cent said getting financial planning advice was harder since closure. The day-to-day problems for small businesses are that they frequently run out of change and therefore lose sales; accumulate high denomination notes; lose customers if they refuse to cash cheques; accumulate cash and cheques because they cannot make deposits, and therefore face an added risk to their security and lost interest; and face an increase in bad debts as customers default on store offered credit.For many communities the bank has been the hub of business activity. The psychological effect of the loss of a town's only bank is profound and causes a lack of security about the town's future. In fact, the CAFI report says that 90 per cent of respondents indicated they were more pessimistic about the future of their community; and 88 per cent of respondents surveyed from towns where their only bank was closed reported that they spent an average of $320 per month less in their local town because they now do their shopping in the new area where they have to travel to access banking facilities. This effect is being felt in the urban areas as well. Consequent effects of reduced local spending include the physical decline of local shops and streetscape and a decline in business and real estate values. Once again, those with limited transport—the aged, the unemployed and many young mothers—are the worst affected.The report proved that the loss of branches on some small communities led to a loss of capital—and, of course, there is a direct link between capital investment and economic activity. Thirty per cent of respondents indicated that after the loss of their only bank they had decided not to undertake a loan for either business or housing. Much needed investment will be lost if the major banks maintain their practice of closing small community branches. To put it bluntly: permanent decline in local spending patterns and investment brought on by bank closures spells great uncertainty about the future economic viability of small communities.I understand and wholeheartedly support the fact that banks have a responsibility to provide healthy dividends to their shareholders. However, they have a responsibility that is equally important, that is, a duty to provide service to customers. I believe that should underpin banking practices. The financial imperative argument put forward by the major banks justifying closures rings hollow as multibillion dollar profits are recorded, staff restructuring continues and fees are increased.Fergus Shiel's article in the Herald Sun of 29 March 1998, based on leaked memos ordering NAB managers to actively discourage over-the-counter transactions, demonstrates the banks' abrogation of their responsibility to provide service to their customers. I have received hundreds of complaints from within my electorate alone, attended public meetings and listened to angry and disillusioned customers of major banks about this issue. It is about time the major banks realised that communities in rural and outer metropolitan areas have had enough of their lack of concern for customer needs.The major banks must take note of the findings of the CAFI report and the concern raised in this debate today. I urge the major banks to adopt a moratorium on any future planned closures, to provide alternative services and to educate existing customers in the ways and means of electronic banking. I call on the major banks to cooperate with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration to investigate the feasibility of funding a combined banking kiosk that can deliver full banking services to communities affected by branch closures. These banks already combine to fund the banking ombudsman, and I call on them to fund a banking kiosk in the same manner.It seems incongruous to me that government departments at all three tiers of government continue to give their business to those major banks that are acting contrary to the interests of people that those same departments or agencies are set up to assist. I strongly encourage smaller regional banks and credit co-ops to seize the initiative from the major banks with dynamic and innovative solutions to the problems created by the desertion of the larger banks. It would be a great fillip to the rural communities if government departments like the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, or local governments, would support these alternatives to the major banks with their business. As an example, I applaud the Bendigo Bank for its community bank proposal, which for some communities may be a solution to their banking needs and provide ongoing community development capital to help sustain our regional communities.This government's credit care program has already assisted a number of communities by facilitating alternative banking services and, in fact, has provided the lifeline so many rural communities have needed right across the country. The behaviour of the major banks in closing banks in rural, outer metropolitan areas and, increasingly, in urban areas in the manner in which they do, with little notice given to their customers or their traders, and creating the problems I have outlined today, is attracting a ground swell of public opposition.I urge this House to recognise the impact of these closures on people, on small businesses and on communities, and pressure the banks to cease further closures, alleviate the impact of recent closures and pursue alternatives to support those adversely affected by this destabilising feature of the major banks' commercial behaviour. I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:31:002506Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I endorse the sentiments submitted to the House by the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) and draw the House's attention to a recent interesting development in this area whereby the ANZ Bank, in fact, broke ranks with its rivals by admitting recently that the rural and outer suburban population's access to banking services is a real problem that cannot be left to the market alone to fix. There is no doubt a need for innovative solutions to resolve this problem of such legitimate concern to members on both sides of the House.Such solutions may well include country pharmacists and newsagents—grocery stores, even—paying somewhere between a forecast $18,000 to $30,000 to secure a five-year franchise to become a bank outlet in such a plan as the one, for example, devised by the Colonial State Bank to arrest the decline of rural bank branches. This is a decline which has seen up to one in every three major bank branches in rural communities close between 1993 and 1996, leaving about 600 communities across Australia without access to a financial institution. Of course, the population in rural Australia is similarly declining and the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 February this year said:In 20 years the number of people living in 215 rural municipalities declined by 12%.The Australian Bankers Association has similarly told the Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee that this is a key reason that banks are closing their branches in rural areas. Those of us on this side of the House in particular believe that there is a role for government in assisting rural communities to both survive and prosper. I believe that the rural population is declining by and large due to this government's policies, which have had such a detrimental impact on rural communities.It is fair to say that non-metropolitan unemployment is high and increasing. In Victoria, between March 1996 and February this year it has increased from 8.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. In New South Wales it is similar. From March 1996 to February this year it went from 9.8 per cent to 11.9 per cent. As I say, it is federal government cutbacks and closures to Telstra, Medicare and CES offices that have also driven the final nails into the coffins of many of these country towns.We believe that banks do have by and large a social obligation to ensure the proper provision of banking services and access to banking arrangements, and also to stem job losses in the banking industry. It is a concern to us and should be a concern to banks. Mr Graeme McEwen is a prominent Melbourne barrister specialising in commercial law who has acted both for and against banks. He is a nephew of the former Prime Minister Sir John McEwen and a candidate in the next election for the seat of McEwen. He said in a recent press release:More is required than `window dressing': banks have now closed or reduced hours of service (or foreshadowed doing so), for example, in Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge, Warburton, Healesville and Wallan. No part of the electorate seems immune.He goes on to say:We should not meekly accept `rationalisation' of the traditional bank branch network in circumstances where ongoing pressure exists by banks and government to implement the Wallis report recommendations permitting bank mergers. Are the banks to be required to offer nothing?He goes on:As the endorsed Labor candidate for an electorate in which bank closures and reduced hours of service are now becoming widespread, I can say that I have been advocating within the . . . Party the adoption of a more far-reaching and meaningful remedy.Those of us on this side of the House can attest to the fact that that is the case. I am always amazed when I see those on the other side of the House advocating more interventionist style policies because the federal government has been telling us now for quite some time that the market always knows best and advocates more Thatcherite, laissez-faire policies. I refer to the Treasurer and member for Higgins, Mr Costello. That is what he says about banks and regulation. In his post-Wallis comment, he said:The Government endorses the Financial System Inquiry recommendation that financial institutions (operating in a competitive setting) should be free to set their fees and charges based generally on the costs of provision.That sounds to me like an open invitation for banks to charge rural customers whatever they want, yet the ABA has affirmed in its submission to the FIPA committee on this inquiry into regional and rural banking that the cost of providing a service in a rural area is higher than it is in the city. On Wallis and government banking regulation, the Treasurer has said:Our regulatory arrangements must keep up. Existing arrangements do not treat all new market structures and activities equally.Nowhere in the Treasurer's response to Wallis, which went on to discuss at length the need to maximise the international competitiveness of our financial services industries, has he mentioned much at all about intervention in the finance area to help rural Australia. One can really only ask whether the coalition is serious about this motion, or is it perhaps just an exercise in profile raising? Given this government's performance on regional development and the way the bush has suffered under it, I believe that country and regional areas will have cause to question its agenda in this regard.In the last three years credit unions have flourished in the bush and have filled part of the gap created by the departure of banks from country towns. Some 39 new credit unions have opened during that time under the scheme established by the former Labor government known as the credit care program, a program which, I am pleased to say, continues to enjoy the support of those on both sides of this House.I conclude by saying that this is an issue primarily about equity. The death of country towns as we know them in Australia—the land of sweeping plains and small country pubs and farmers, who many say are the backbone of our country—is of great concern to us all. The elderly, the disabled and the recipients of government benefits in rural communities do need ongoing access to banking services where there is a smiling face and cash still changes hands in some environment of established rapport and trust. Sure, smart cards, the Internet and phone banking might well be the way of the future, but they do not solve all of the problems.I believe that the Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee has raised some of the community's concerns and will no doubt continue to work towards a solution so that rural Australia is able to access some decent banking services in the future. I have heard and read of government members talking about working towards fixing the problem. However, I hope those statements are not politically motivated and aimed at just simply pleasing rural constituencies.This government's actions so far in relation to the equity and banking issue provide me with only some confidence that the right thing will occur in rural and regional Australia. As public companies, banks have a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders but they must also accept a duty to their customers, regardless of where they live in Australia, because, after all, it is these customers who have made these profits possible for the banks.13:40:002508Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In seconding this motion, I would like to start with some of the comments that the member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton) made because I was a little disappointed about some of them, given that he is deputy chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration and has been actively involved in the inquiry that we are currently running into alternative banking for regional areas. I found it a little offensive when he asked whether the government is serious about this motion and the thrust of this motion.I would have thought that the fact that the government made the reference to the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration is clear proof that the government is very serious about this. Furthermore, what is expected from this committee and what is expected from the report that will be delivered to this parliament later in the year will provide the framework for some very clear government action on dealing with what is a very serious problem and one that the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) has outlined very eloquently in relation to what is happening in so many parts of regional Australia. Therefore, I take exception to those comments.I also point out that when the honourable member for Isaacs makes reference to what can be done to assist rural communities, any problems that he wishes to highlight today have their origins back in the days of a Labor administration. I was also rather curious to see him quoting unemployment figures, comparing regional Victoria with regional New South Wales, given that New South Wales has a state Labor government and the figures in New South Wales were worse. I do not know what that says about his colleagues in the state government, but I do not think they would be too flattered by that comparison.As has been pointed out, there has been a very serious decline in the provision of banking services to people in regional areas. One in three bank branches have closed in the years between 1993 and 1996. Six hundred communities around Australia no longer have a bank branch. The inquiry that I have already mentioned follows on from recommendation No. 96 from the Wallis report, which said that governments should examine alternative means of providing low cost transaction services. I think what we are already finding with the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration is that there is very real interest in this whole issue. In fact, the committee has received more than 100 submissions from every state and territory in Australia. It will be visiting every state and the Northern Territory and taking further evidence from the authors of these submissions. I think that all honourable members would be pleased to know that we are taking this inquiry very seriously.We do recognise that competition has been driving change in the provision of banking services but, as has been pointed out, there is a very real concern that there is a gap appearing in the provision of services, particularly for elderly people and certain groups of people who cannot easily change to some of the newer services such as ATMs or phone banking. We also know about the effect on the communities, contrary to what has been said by some, including the ABA, the Australian Bankers Association, that when the last bank leaves town, it may be as a result of declining business but it also has a dramatic effect on that town when it does go. One example that came before the committee shows that when a bank closes, the super market's turnover drops immediately by 20 per cent.As my time is limited, I again reinforce the very important work that credit care is doing, which has already been mentioned. I also highlight the fact that the major banks have been rather slow to respond to the inquiry, which again reinforces a poor public perception of their attitude towards their customers. However, we are seeing some more positive signs. I am hoping that, as the interest in this inquiry continues to gain momentum, we will see a much more positive response and a bit of lateral thinking from the major banks. I support this motion. I hope that it will help to lead to better services for people in rural and regional Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members250925092509Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—This Thursday, 9 April is the 100th anniversary of the birth of an outstanding, talented and courageous American, Paul Robeson. Paul Robeson fought against discrimination, racism and intolerance. He fought courageously for peace, freedom, friendship, dignity and civil rights. He said he had never experienced full human dignity until he visited the Soviet Union prior to World War II and after witnessing the racism and anti-semitism of Nazi Germany. It had a profound impact on him. It could not have been otherwise. He was a victim of the blind hatred and anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthyist era.ABC Classic FM broadcast the Robeson story yesterday. It will broadcast some of his songs on Thursday morning. I congratulate Dr Hannah Middleton and the Paul Robeson Centenary Committee for ensuring that this anniversary would be recognised. A Paul Robeson exhibition will be held in the Sydney Town Hall from 8 to 14 April and in Melbourne's Percy Grainger Museum from 16 to 19 April. A concert tribute will be held in the Tom Mann Theatre in Sydney this Thursday night, with Margaret Roadknight and others, and in the Melba Hall, Melbourne, on Sunday, 19 April. Everyone should try to attend these events to honour a great human being, a great American negro, a great fighter for peace, a great artist and entertainer, and a great, great man. (Time expired)25092509Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Members will have noticed the frequency of stories in the press about the current drought, particularly in south-east Australia. Members flying into Canberra could not have helped but observe how bad things are in the general Canberra district. It is much worse, however, as you head south. I have watched week by week over the past 12 months conditions deteriorating. Each week we would pray for rain, but nothing has come. The El Nino effect is absolutely devastating. This is no ordinary drought. Farmers on the Monaro are used to tough conditions and to regular droughts. But this is different. Family knowledge going back 70 or 80 years in many cases has never seen anything like this. Good management has got these farmers through the past four years of bad seasons, but the intensity of the dryness and continuity of the drought conditions could never have been planned for.Governments of all persuasions have acknowledged that there must be long-term structural policy changes made to prevent taxpayers having to bail out farmers in times of drought. However, this is quite separate from the current situation. You need some good seasons to be able to successfully implement change. You do not do it during what may be the worst drought this century. That is why last week I called on the New South Wales government to reinstate the freight subsidy. Together with my state colleague Peter Cochran, I will be asking that the federal and state governments look at some other help so that farmers can afford to purchase feed to keep prime breeding stock on their land. (Time expired)25092509Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The communities which make up the Cessnock local government area were founded on coal. The area once boasted more than 20 coal mines. On Friday it lost its last, and with it went the jobs of 88 coal miners, most of whom had worked at the Ellalong-Pelton colliery for many decades. When BHP last year announced its decision to close its Newcastle steelworks, the politicians were falling over one another to see who could call loudest for assistance; yet, as an Upper Hunter Business Enterprise Centre study shows, in relative terms the downturn in the coal mining and power generation industries will have a greater impact on the Cessnock and Upper Hunter LGAs than the BHP closure will have on Newcastle.In December last year I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), seeking some assistance. I have received no reply. The New South Wales government is doing its bit. It has established the Upper Hunter 2000 Committee to address the problems. But the crisis will require Commonwealth assistance. The problem requires a two-pronged attack. First, we need money to build on the Upper Hunter BEC's work in order that an economic strategy for the subregion can be developed. Second, we need an industry labour market adjustment package to assist in the retraining and placing of coal miners in particular. I ask the Prime Minister to respond to my correspondence on both matters. These are proud communities and they will fight for their survival. But to survive they will need help. I ask the Prime Minister to respond. (Time expired)25102510Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—The Queen's Scout Award is one of the highest awards that can be achieved in the venture scout section of the scouting movement. Today I would like to congratulate Leigh Smith of the Boondall Scouts for achieving this award. Leigh's mother told me that Leigh never gives up and will always perform to the best of her ability. Although she has a heart condition, she refuses to let it interfere with the goal she has set herself. Leigh is the type of person any coach or employer would love to have, because she will not let them down.Leigh's climb to the top of the scouting movement is an inspiration, and it exhausts me just reading some of her achievements in becoming a Queen's Scout. She has spoken on the effects of drugs and alcohol on teenagers; has cleared trees from the Murrenbong camping area; has organised expeditions to Longreach; has assisted on a camp for disabled youth for the last seven years; has scored the most home runs in her softball club, the Bears; has learnt to tap dance; has gained a senior first aid and resuscitation certificate; is treasurer for Interact at Aspley High School; and has passed a leadership course and gone on to become a head facilitator. Leigh is a credit to her family and the scouting movement. I am sure that, with her determination, she will be able to make a great contribution to our local community of Lilley. I wish her the best for the future.25102510Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The high incidence of asthma attacks on the residents of western Sydney is of considerable concern to the public health authorities. On this issue I refer this parliament to a quote from an excellent document produced by the Blacktown City Council, Submissions on the draft EIS for Badgerys Creek second airport proposal . It states:Higher levels of air pollution (particularly ozone and particulate matter) can serve as triggers for asthma attacks and other respiratory complaints. Given the likely increase in air pollution as a result of the proposal, greater western Sydney residents will suffer increased respiratory illness creating an additional strain on already stretched health services.The health implications of the airport's construction for the people of greater western Sydney appear to be significantly down played in the draft EIS. According to the national asthma campaign, approximately 30% of all Australians will have respiratory symptoms consistent with asthma at some time in their life.A telephone survey conducted by the greater western Sydney Public Health Unit in November 1991 of 1026 residents aged over 18 years found that asthma was the second leading cause of emergency admissions and outpatient department visits to hospitals within the previous two weeks. The respondents also rated asthma as the second most common reason for staying away from work or study.Another phone survey conducted in 1995 by the greater western Sydney Public Health Unit of Holroyd and Auburn local government areas showed that 12.1 per cent of respondents had been diagnosed with asthma. It is estimated that nine per cent of the population of New South Wales is affected by asthma. (Time expired)25112511Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—In the year 2000 the Czech Republic will hold the fifth International Abilympics. Abilympics is the `Olympics of Abilities' and provides an opportunity to display the highly talented skills of people with disabilities. The fourth International Abilympics was held in 1995 in Perth, where Australia won 17 medals.The Abilympics are important for a number of reasons: public awareness is increased and it is a display of the abilities of participants and their peers; the employment potential of participants and their integration into the community are enhanced; and the pride in representing Australia is also significant. While the Abilympics is focused on work skills, there are other important aspects to do with the conference, including the participation of keynote speakers from various countries to discuss current issues and policies impacting on people with disabilities.The Abilympics Australia Association is now requiring funding, and I urge the government to give great consideration to its appeal for funds so Australians with disabilities can continue to participate in this important event and receive the positive recognition that they so truly deserve.25112511Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—It was recently brought to my attention by the United Australian-Lebanese Movement that a proposed visit by General Michel Aoun to Australia was rejected by the coalition government. I believe that refusal was not only unwarranted but a miscarriage of justice, showing scant regard for our democratic principles and the rights of all Australians, whether they be of Lebanese origin or not. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to reconsider his government's ill-advised rejection of General Aoun's visit as the general has proven himself to be a man of vision and perception. In fact, he accurately predicted as far back as 1991 the demise of democracy in Lebanon following his exile as a result of the invasion of Lebanon by Syrian troops, and his warning signals that the lack of guarantees in the Taif accord will result in the permanent positioning of foreign troops are exactly as he predicted.The coalition government allowed the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Carlos Belo to visit Australia whilst pursuing the goals and dreams of freedom for the people of Tibet and East Timor respectively. Why, then, reject General Aoun? Australians of Lebanese background are greatly concerned about the deteriorating situation of human rights, democracy and economic status of their former homeland. Moreover, on the eve of the Middle East process it would be a great opportunity for all Australians, including the more than 300,000 Australians of Lebanese background, to hear the views of General Aoun, one of the greatest supporters of a fully comprehensive and long-lasting peace between all nations in the Middle East. Australians of Lebanese origin are keen to see a greater role played—(Time expired)25112511Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I would like to congratulate Chatswood Sheltered Industries for receiving a cheque from this government of $140,000 to support them and the sheltered workshop through some difficult times which have been brought about by a fall in revenue sources over the last 12 months.The reason why this government is in a position to allocate $140,000 to help the workers at the sheltered workshop is that people in my electorate have made sacrifices. We closed the CES in North Sydney. The tax office in Chatswood has closed, resulting in redundancies of about 400 people. Particularly in relation to Defence Force land, my electorate has made sacrifices with medium density development on sites at Willoughby in North Sydney and, as has been proposed in the newspapers, development of a site at HMAS Platypus at Neutral Bay. The site at HMAS Platypus is a source of great debate, but it is necessary that we put medium density development there in order to gain maximum value from the site and at the same time have a balanced development that realises the environmental problems associated with the site and the remediation costs involved.If people in my electorate are prepared to make sacrifices in areas where they can make a contribution to the better welfare of Australia, such as the sale of Defence Force land and the closure of the CES and the tax office, then funds are available to fund those people most in need. A very good instance is the sheltered workshop. (Time expired)25122512Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Howard government has again ignored the needs of Campbelltown in two critical areas: services for the local migrant community; plus the sporting and regional development needs of my electorate. The Campbelltown Adult Migrant English Services has been forced to close its doors despite providing a service to thousands of new Australians over the past 20 years. This is because the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) has signed a contract with a private provider—a company with none of the experience of AMES or the expertise of its staff. This is another example of the government's agenda to privatise education in Australia.Moreover, this government has seen fit to green-barrel its own constituency via the Natural Heritage Trust. I have received a letter from the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) which states that he cannot find the funding to match the contribution being made by the New South Wales government and Campbelltown City Council in the development of the Campbelltown Regional Sporting Complex. This is the type of major infrastructure that south-west Sydney so desperately needs—a world-class sporting facility including the flow-on improvements to the region through better transport links and increased investment, and employment opportunities.The government's promise to govern for all of us should have included a subtitle: `Except if you live in south-west Sydney and depend on essential government services.'25122512Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Call me old-fashioned but I believe the appropriate thing to do if you say the wrong thing or a hurtful thing of another person, whether it be someone who works at the most humble occupation in the country or whether it be the Prime Minister and his family, is to apologise for it.I was here when the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) expressed, quite rightly, his hurt and indignation when the member for Swan (Mr Randall) apologised for his intemperate remarks about him and Mrs Cheryl Kernot. So, too, the member for Holt should consider that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has a family and a long history of commitment to the people of Australia, including the most marginalised and impoverished.Instead of child-like petulance in this parliament, I believe it is time we remembered the people we are here to represent—hardworking taxpayers, men and women of Australia—and we are here to engage in an adult-like debate and represent the best values we seek to inculcate in our own children. For that reason, amongst many others, I believe the member for Holt should apologise unreservedly to the Prime Minister and his family.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! In accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice251225122512Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I ask whether the minister recalls telling the House last Wednesday:There are 10,000 more Commonwealth-funded student places in universities this year than there were in Labor's last year.Why then does this document—the higher education funding report—issued by the minister himself last week, show a drop of nearly 5,000 in Commonwealth-funded student places between 1996 and 1998? Minister, haven't you been caught out red-handed misleading the House?2513Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, it is very nice to see the member for Werriwa getting up and asking a question on education. There have not been too many of them. I was very interested to see Brian Toohey's comments in the Sun-Herald yesterday.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Wait until I call you before you make your point of order.K26LATHAMMr Latham—On the question of relevance, I do not need a character reference from the minister; I need an answer to the specific question I asked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—As Brian Toohey wrote in yesterday's Sun Herald —LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to the question of relevance. The question was whether or not the minister misled the House; not Mr Toohey's article. I ask that you bring him back to the point of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Further to the point of order: the member has just drawn to our attention some of the substance of that question which, in my view, I would submit to you, makes the answer wide open in terms of relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The minister is entirely in order. At the moment he has said three words since the last point of order, so I suggest that we might hear what the minister is saying.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He has said at least 23 words, and they are not relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not count them precisely, but I suggest that we let the minister have another go.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members to remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—This goes to the issue of education that I was asked about. Brian Toohey said yesterday:Beazley's supporters argue that Latham would be in a better position to criticise—that is, his own side—if he had not been such a disappointment since being appointed Shadow Education Minister last year.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Answer the question!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. When we have some silence, I will call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order: now that we have actually heard what he wanted to read, it has absolutely no relationship to the question of university student numbers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that, over the years, ministers have generally been allowed a fair amount of latitude in their introduction to their response. I suggest the minister now respond to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, let me put the facts very clearly on the record because it is quite clear that the member for Werriwa has not done sufficient research to actually determine what the situation is in universities. This year, there are an extra 4,000 fully funded Commonwealth places in universities. There are some 10,000 more fully funded Commonwealth undergraduate places in universities this year than there were in Labor's last year.K26LATHAMMr Latham—That is not what your own report says. Read your own report.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Tell the truth!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—Overall, there are some 19,000 more undergraduate students in universities in 1998 than there were in 1996.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Tell the truth!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—The Commonwealth government's objective is to expand the number of student places available to school leavers in Australia and to expand the resources available to universities, and we are doing that by shifting the balance between government-funded places and private funding of places in universities. This year, Australian universities will have more students in them than ever before and will be better funded than ever before. In fact, between 1995 and 1998 the total revenue of Australian universities is some $550 million higher this year than it was in your last full year of office. So don't come into this House and try, with your constant deceit, to tell the people of Australia that this government is restricting places in Australian universities or restricting funding. This government is all about expanding opportunities for young Australians and, if you had done a bit more work on your portfolio, you would know that that is the fact and you would stop trying to mislead the Australian people.25142514Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, would you inform the House of the positive impact the coalition government's responsible economic policies have had on small business and the wider community?2514Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I say in reply to the honourable member for Murray that, on Friday, we had a further piece of quite dramatic evidence of the success of my government's economic policies on the business sector of Australia. On Friday, another major Australian bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, dramatically lowered its business interest rates. The benefit of this dramatic reduction will flow through not only to large businesses in Australia but also to small businesses and throughout the Australian community.The Commonwealth Bank has effectively matched Westpac's move to lower business overdraft interest rates to 7.2 per cent. Let me say that again: to a level of 7.2 per cent. Let me remind the parliament that in 1989 when the Labor Party was in office business interest rates in Australia reached 20.5 per cent; in other words, a full 13 per cent—let me say it again: a full 13 per cent—above what they are now as a result of the announcements made by Westpac and by the Commonwealth Bank.Just to illustrate the degree of difference, can I tell you that the interest payment on a $100,000 business loan with rates at 20.5 per cent works out at $1,708 a month but the interest payment on a $100,000 business loan with interest rates at 7.2 per cent works out at $600 a month. In other words, there is a difference of $1,108 month. So the peak under Labor was $1,108 a month above what it is as a result of the announcements made by Westpac and by the Commonwealth Bank.In commenting on Westpac's move to lower business rates—a move now matched by the Commonwealth Bank—some financial market commentators suggested that the reduction could in aggregate save businesses across Australia somewhere between $150 million and $400 million. The fact that businesses are now benefiting from low interest rates is a direct result of the remedial measures my government took two years ago to eliminate Mr Beazley's $10.5 billion deficit. The action that we have taken to bring inflation in Australia to the lowest level in the OECD area, to give to the Australian people and to the men and women in business throughout the Australian community the lowest business rates since the 1960s—all of it is underpinning growing confidence and a very positive attitude within the Australian business community.The actions taken by my colleague the Treasurer to implement the recommendations of the Wallis committee report have all added to the competitive nature of the Australian financial system. What we are doing by building this confidence is not only providing cheaper finance for home buyers and for businesspeople but we are also building the reputation of Australia as a secure, reliable, dependable and attractive place in which to invest.The way in which we have been able to fireproof the Australian economy against the ravages of the economic turmoil in the Asia-Pacific region is a direct result of the policies that my government has followed over the last two years. We see a growing confidence in the business community. We see an increasingly competitive financial sector. We see record low interest rates. In a sentence, while Labor Party frontbenchers have been muckraking, we have been busily cutting interest rates for home buyers and businesspeople.25152515Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, in your answer to the parliament last Wednesday you claimed that total Commonwealth funded student places—that is, undergraduate plus postgraduate places—have increased by 10,000 since 1996. Yet last Tuesday the Leader of the House tabled a funding report signed off under your name showing a cut of 5,000 places. Minister, will you now concede that this is a straightforward case of your misleading the House and needing to apologise?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker on a point of order: the member for Werriwa has accused the Prime Minister of misleading the House, not by substantive motion but by using the form of question time. If you do not overrule him, it will be regarded as an invitation to all other members with similar disrespect for the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—While I understand the purport of the point of order of the member for Parramatta, I point out that the member was asking a question, has he misled; he was not stating that he is misleading. There is a fine line of difference, and I invite the minister to respond.2515Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The member for Werriwa is smarting over the criticism that he is getting from his own side of politics for his complete lack of interest in the education portfolio. Indeed, there was a very interesting article about this in the Australian over the weekend—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the opposition will remain silent. When the House is silent, the honourable member for Werriwa on a point of order.K26LATHAMMr Latham—My point of order is on the question of relevance, Mr Speaker. He is making no attempt to answer the question. I know he reads newspapers—has he read his own funding report?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The minister is certainly at this stage leading into his answer. We invite the minister to answer the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Werriwa is smarting over the criticism he is getting from his own backbench on precisely this issue of education and your interest in it. An article in the Weekend Australian by Richard McGregor makes a point that when the Australian visited the shadow minister in his office in Parliament House last week Latham was stewing over an anonymous quote from an ALP colleague—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—A point of order, Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Batman on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I will take this. I take precisely the same point of order as the member for Batman here, Mr Speaker. This is absolutely way off the mark of a very specific question. Relevance, even broadly interpreted, cannot match this situation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will direct his remarks to the question asked of him. At this stage he is a little wide of the mark.BT4Dr KEMP—I am leading precisely to the point that the member for Werriwa is asking a question of this kind—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If opposition members remain silent they will hear the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—Because he is in fact trying to demonstrate to his backbench, who do not believe it, that he has some knowledge of the shadow portfolio. Let me put before the House the facts of the situation, as every Australian is interested in knowing them. The facts of the situation are these: in 1998 there are record numbers of enrolments in universities.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Commonwealth-funded students.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the Opposition will cease interjecting.BT4Dr KEMP—Well, let us just go right through the picture so that we do not end up with a distorted impression of what the facts are. There are record numbers of enrolments projected in universities for this year; 19,000 more than in 1996. It is projected further that total enrolments will continue to grow. Including fee payers and overenrolments, there are 28,000 projected more by the year 2000 than over the year 1996.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You were talking Commonwealth-funded students.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the Opposition will cease interjecting.BT4Dr KEMP—In relation to Commonwealth subsidised undergraduate places—K26LATHAMMr Latham—No, it is not foreign students; total!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has asked his question and will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—I said undergraduate, and I say undergraduate again.K26LATHAMMr Latham—No, not undergraduate students.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will remain silent.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What about postgraduate students?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will remain silent. He has asked his question; I suggest he allow the minister to respond.BT4Dr KEMP—There are 10,000 more undergraduate places this year than in 1996, and there are an extra 4,000 Commonwealth fully-funded undergraduate places in universities this year. The facts of the situation are quite clear: total numbers of students are growing.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, again on relevance. The minister first began addressing—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is answering the question and he is entirely within order.RH4KERRMr Kerr—No, he is not. He is avoiding the point precisely and is not answering the question that has been asked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question in his own way, and he is entirely within the standing orders in so doing.BT4Dr KEMP—And accurately, Mr Speaker. There are an extra 4,000 fully-funded Commonwealth undergraduate places in universities this year over last year, making a total of 14,000 more such places than in 1996—your last year of office. The facts are absolutely clear. In terms of fully-funded undergraduate places, in terms of total numbers of students and in terms of total funding and revenue for universities, this government has expanded access to Australian universities.25162516Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether Australia is perceived as being a racially and religiously tolerant country? Is the minister aware of statements which have been made which may challenge these positive images of Australia abroad, and what is the government's response to these statements?2516Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question. I know that he is one of many members of this House who feel very passionately about Australia maintaining its well-earned reputation for being a racially and religiously tolerant country. In my role, I find that that is a response that one gets from the international community to Australia, but it is worth mentioning that on 30 March—just a few days ago—the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Religious Intolerance, Mr Amor, reported to the 54th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, after a visit that he made to Australia. He stated:It can be said that Australia constitutes an original example of integrated multiculturalism and of religious tolerance.He went on to say:Regarding Aboriginals, a policy of reconciliation and of support is being developed. Legislation protecting certain lands and sacred sites, as well as religious property, is being implemented. Work continues on the restitution of the religious and cultural heritage of the Aboriginal people.This was the view expressed a few days ago by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. This view does remind all of us in this House that we should be temperate in our use of language on some of the difficult issues that are currently being debated. There is, of course, no better example than the debate currently being conducted in Australia on the Wik legislation.It is perfectly legitimate for people to have different views on this legislation, but it is another thing for people to use intemperate language which simply inflames the debate. There is no better example of that than the example we saw last week—just three days after the United Nations report was handed down—when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the remarks he made about the Prime Minister which could only be described as utterly reprehensible. As Dennis Shanahan of the Australian pointed out: the race debate was out of the bottle and Gareth Evans had pulled the cork. We hoped that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's statement to the House today would put an end to the matter. We hoped he would come in here and apologise instead of standing up and making a lot of disingenuous excuses. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has today compounded the problem; he has compounded his problem and he has compounded the Labor Party's problem. He went to the trouble of informing the government that he was going to make a statement to the House, and we came to hear a statement of apology and to put the matter behind us. We ended up with lame excuses, but we ended up without an apology.Therefore, the words that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used last week remain on the record, the preposterous slur against the Prime Minister of this country remains on the record, and this continues to create an impression that there is a public debate in this country which is based on intolerance. If the Leader of the Opposition had any political courage, he would instruct his frontbenchers to desist from using this sort of racially charged language, but he won't. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition does not mind people going around using this sort of racially charged language.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You have put this back on the agenda.4G4Mr DOWNER—I note the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition that I have somehow put this matter back on the agenda. It is not I who made the remarks; it was not I who came into the House today and made excuses but did not give an apology. An apology would have put an end to the matter; excuses do not.25172517Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the CES has told a major retail chain that they will now charge a minimum of $300 for every shop assistant they employ? Is the minister aware that, according to a 12 January memo to CES regional managers, other employers will now have to pay up to $2,000 for an employee and these fees are only an interim pricing structure pending further increases after 1 May?2517Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is interesting to see that the tactics committee is still prepared to allow the member for Batman to actually get up and ask a question. Just for the information of the member for Batman, in case he has missed the government's announcement on this point, the CES ceases to exist from 1 May. If he is interested in the charging policies of the CES I can inform him that the previous Labor government introduced a policy called CES plus. CES plus gave the CES the opportunity to charge fees to employers. This was an improvement on the CES that did not charge fees.The CES, from 1 May, will be superseded by Employment National. Employment National will be the government's providers in the job network. The job network will be providing greatly improved services to unemployed people. Unemployed people will have a much better chance of getting a job than they have ever had before because the one thing that the member for Batman and all the dinosaurs on the front bench refuse to admit is that the old system simply did not work well enough for unemployed people. The government has an obligation to unemployed people and we have made the most significant social reform for many decades to help unemployed people in this country get more opportunities.The charging policies that will be followed for employers by Employment National have already been announced. I have announced those policies in the House and the Prime Minister has tabled the relevant press release from Employment National. I suggest that the member for Batman gets himself up to date.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the memo detailing this pricing structure.Leave not granted.25182518Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen the ANZ job advertisement series for March released earlier today? Can the Treasurer inform my electorate and the Australian public how these figures compare with other recent jobs data? What is the government's response to them?2518Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I can assure him and the members of his electorate that, today, job vacancies released by the ANZ showed another rise in the month of March—a .2 per cent rise in the month of March on top of a 5.1 per cent increase in February. Last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics released job vacancy figures showing them to be at the highest level on record.3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—The highest level?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The highest level on record, yes. Members might be surprised that the economic dinosaur Leader of the Opposition jumped up in parliament and said, `Is it not a fact that these are the best job vacancy figures only since February 1996?' That was the claim that was made.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—That is right.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He was right, was he? That was right? Isn't that funny, because the actual document itself reads as follows:Total job vacancies in February 1998 were 71,600. This is the highest recorded level of vacancies.There it was, right on the front of the bulletin. Yet the economic dinosaur got up on Thursday claiming that what the front page of the ABS statistics said was somehow wrong. He would know, wouldn't he? He would know; you can always trust his figures. You can always trust the figures of the Australian Labor Party.Here we have the ABS job vacancies at the highest recorded level, a 5.1 per cent increase last month on the ANZ job vacancies being confirmed and increasing today, employment growth averaging 17,000 per month in 1997-98 so far this year—isn't that great? Full-time employment has contributed most of that growth. The unemployment rate in February of 1998 at 8.1 per cent was the lowest since 1990—the lowest since Paul Keating and the Labor Party said this was the recession we had to have. We can remember who had the highest unemployment rate while he was the employment minister: the king of the unemployment rate himself, the Leader of the Opposition—11.3 per cent.I was wondering where you would go if you were looking for a policy from the Labor Party. We know where you would go if you were looking for a smear from the Labor Party—you would go right down this end of the front bench. But where would you go if you were looking for a policy from the Australian Labor Party on employment? Well, the only person in the Australian Labor Party who has tried to put out a policy, because he is so embarrassed about the leadership, is the member for Werriwa. You might be interested to know what the Labor Party policy on unemployment is. It is on page 104 of the Australian Labor Party's document Civilising Global Capital. It say this:The quest for full employment has actually been achieved, but only in a particular type of labour market in certain parts of the country. These are regions with a strong set of upstairs skills and the consequent generation of a large number of downstairs jobs. To be certain—and here is the Labor Party policy—high unemployment is not a problem across the macro economy.K26LATHAMMr Latham—It is a book, not a policy; and you should read it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party apparently agrees with us that the employment results are very good. That is from the thinker of the Australian Labor Party. The economic dinosaurs down here may have words but we prefer to look at their actions. Their actions caused 11.3 per cent unemployment—the Australian post-war record—and that was from the current Leader of the Opposition, whom they made the leader of the Labor Party after his great failure.We do not totally endorse the member for Werriwa's position. We think we can still do better, and we should still try to do better in Australia. But we welcome it when the Australian Labor Party recognises the great strides that have been done: the ANZ job vacancies, the ABS job vacancies, the lowest unemployment since Paul Keating gave us the recession—and I think people in Australia will think that is a good outcome.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in the absence of a request from the member for Hotham, could the Treasurer please table the good news ABS document from which he was reading.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will the Treasurer table the document?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent. The Treasurer has the call. Will you table the document, Treasurer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will, Mr Speaker, after the tirade finishes. It is called `ABS Job vacancies and overtime—6354.0. Total job vacancies in February 1998: 71,600. This is the highest recorded level of vacancies'.Distinguished Visitors251910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, Mrs Birgitta Dahl, and also the Hon. Roy Yaki, the Minister for Foreign Affairs from Papua New Guinea. On behalf of members of the House, I extend them both a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice251925192519Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, do you remember your statements in this place that Centrelink will give all job seekers better access to facilities, and that you have an understanding with the major agencies that job seekers, whether they are eligible or not, will get help? Minister, have you seen comments by the Mitchelton Centrelink manager, Ms Kay Albretch, in Brisbane, that her staff will be unable to help job seekers unless they are receiving unemployment benefits and `job brokers wont' have a lot of time for those that don't qualify'? Minister, is it not the case that from 1 May job brokers like Employment National, Drake, Mission Australia and the Salvation Army are under no legal or contractual obligations to help find jobs for those not on benefits? Minister, if the Mitchelton Centrelink manager can be frank and honest, why can't you?2519Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am sure that many inaccurate statements are made by particular people; they are mainly made on the other side of the chamber, I may say. But I prefer to rely on the nationally stated policies and the contracts which my department has with Centrelink. The fact of the matter is that Centrelink will be providing free access—universal free access—to all job seekers to access the free vacancy base—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Oh, the terminal?DT4CREANMr Crean—The computer!BT4Dr KEMP—The terminal, the job vacancies. This is a minor thing: that people have access to a greatly expanded job vacancy database? That is the first thing they get free access to. The second thing is that they get free access to the other facilities which Centrelink provides—free computers to do their job resumes; free photocopiers to copy their resumes; free telephones to phone the employers, so that they can make contact with any employer who has a job on the Centrelink database.The next thing, of course, that they can do is to access any of the agencies that have got on that database job vacancies which are not clearly restricted to longer term people on benefits. Of course, there may well be cases where employers and job agencies are negotiating with each other to place longer term unemployed people, and they may wish to indicate that on the job vacancy database. But, apart from those particular cases, anyone looking for a job, whether they are in a job, even if they are not on unemployment benefit, will be able to access these free services through Centrelink.The major job agencies have already made it clear that they will be offering their services to anyone who comes to them, because their undertaking to employers—and, indeed, their own self-interest as agencies—will be to say to employers that they can place with that employer the best person to fill that vacancy. The Job Network will be offering greatly improved services to unemployed people.DT4CREANMr Crean—What services?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!BT4Dr KEMP—It will have a much larger job vacancy database than has existed in the past. And the government is taking further steps to ensure that the size of that job vacancy database is expanded. The Job Network will provide many more points of access for unemployed people. The current CES has some 296 offices around Australia available for basic job matching services; the Job network will have over 1,400—1,400 such points of access. Above all else, members of the Job Network, unlike anything that has gone before, will be competing with each other to get unemployed people into jobs. They will be paid for those basic job matching services when they get an unemployed person into a job.How different this is to the system supported by the member for Hotham and the member for Batman when they were in office—a system into which was poured hundreds of millions of hard earned taxpayers' dollars into a system which had in relation to its major program a four per cent success rate and cost $143,000 a job; a system that almost bankrupted Australia. We are putting in place a system which will provide unemployed people with the best job service searching that they have ever had.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I seek leave to table the press release quoting the manager of the Mitchelton Centrelink, demonstrating that the minister's comments are untrue.Leave not granted.25202520Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Is the minister aware of recent reports regarding the government's incentives for people who have or take out private health insurance? What is the government's response to these reports; and how do they compare with prior comments made on these issues?2520Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. After two years of ridiculing the private health insurance incentive scheme, it was very nice to see the Leader of the Opposition do a backflip on Friday on the ABC news saying, `We won't abolish the private health insurance rebate.' This is very welcome, even if it only lasted 48 hours because on Sunday he decided to call a doorstop interview that was billed to the media as the life raft for private health insurance, and this was how he was going to fix things.I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is thinking about health. However, this life raft turns out to have a fair sort of hole in it. At the doorstop interview the Leader of the Opposition said the following:The way to fix the system is real money to the state hospitals, some of the money coming from the health rebate which has been underspent and insisting that the states maintain their effort to the solution is the problem right now.There are two major problems with this. The first is that, as a former Minister for Finance, the Leader of the Opposition would know that any underspends are automatically updated in parameter reviews in the mid-year economic review and in the budget. Should there actually be any underspend, it is deemed as fortuitous and it is rolled into the budget bottom line.The only consequence of this could be that we have to add this to the list of unfunded promises in health that the Labor Party has made, which so far is to abolish the therapeutic group premiums, $500 million over four years; to restore savings from forward estimates agreed by premiers, $800 million; to restore the funding from the Commonwealth dental program, $400 million; to support the states' demand for an extra $1.1 billion in base funding under the five-year agreement at a cost of $4.4 billion; and full indexation of the MBS standard consultation for fees for GPs at $162.5 billion, which comes to $6.265 billion to which we can now add another unfunded $1.2 billion over four years.The other problem with this is that it shows that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the problem with hospitals, because it is not simply a matter of more money. The then Minister for Finance was lamenting during the 1996 election that the more money the Commonwealth put in, the more money the states pulled out. That is absolutely correct. That is a direct result of the Medicare agreement you signed in 1993. The solution to the problem with hospitals is much more complex than just more money. If you take the one Labor state, New South Wales, and have a look at the cost of operations on a casemix basis in that state and then compare it to Queensland, where hospitals are running quite well, if Andrew Refshauge ran his hospitals as efficiently as Mike Horan does in Queensland, New South Wales would have an extra $689 million every year to spend on their hospitals.Secondly, one of the legacies we had of 13 years of Labor in office was to have one of the highest utilisations of hospitals anywhere in the world. We use hospitals very highly by international standards, and the only way to fix that is having substitution for in hospital treatment by community care, which has never happened until now in this country, and looking at step down facilities and other facilities like that, both of which are instru mental in the agreements that we are signing with the states.Finally, the solution to hospitals is looking at prevention as much as looking at treatment, as is being done with the recent initiative to immunise older Australians against influenza, in our measles initiative, in our ongoing campaign on smoking to try to continue the decline in smoking prevalence which had completely halted under Labor. The simple statements show that the Labor Party has no understanding of the complexities of the health portfolio. While I welcome them wanting to make private health more affordable for Australians, clearly they have a long way to go in their thinking.25212521Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying on 31 March on the 7.30 Report that no patient would be worse off because of the breakdown in the negotiations on Commonwealth funding for public hospitals? Prime Minister, how can the minister for health just claim that the negotiations are not about putting extra money into public hospitals when only last week the Victorian government was forced to put in a $7 million extra increase in funding just to keep the doors open at the Austin and Repatriation Hospital, the second biggest public hospital in Victoria? Prime Minister, when will you be prepared to sit down in fair dinkum negotiations with the states to fix up the crisis in public hospitals and stop peddling your phoney claim about the Commonwealth's so-called generous offer which does little more than put back the money that you have already taken out of public hospitals?2521Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Home Alone has really done it this time! What I have constantly said, and I take the opportunity of repeating, is that irrespective of the attitude taken by the premiers at the recent Premiers Conference we will honour in full without deduction to the very last dollar the offer that was put on the table at the Premiers Conference. I say to the Australian public that that offer was a fair offer, it was a reasonable offer, it is an offer that involves a three per cent increase for five years, giving a cumulative rise of 15 per cent over five years. That is what I have said constantly, and that is what the honourable member for Dobell's question gives me the opportunity of saying yet again.I also take the opportunity of informing the House of a few of the basic facts. These are facts that would be very much in the recollection of the member for Fremantle. In 1995 when the member for Fremantle was the minister for health she claimed rather bitterly that, as fast as the Commonwealth put more money into hospitals for the states, the states took it away. That is the complete opposite of what the member for Dobell is now saying. I remind the House that during the five years of Labor's 1993 Medicare agreements the Commonwealth spent over $3¼ billion more on hospitals than if it had maintained funding at the 1992-93 levels. The states spent only $355 million more than if they had maintained their 1992-93 funding level. State spending actually declined in the first and second years of the agreements by $500 million in 1993-94 and by $331 million in—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, this is the very issue he asked me about.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was about how the Prime Minister could claim that no patient would suffer if he does not increase the offer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister's answer is entirely relevant to your question.MG4LEEMr Lee—His answer is totally about the past agreement rather than the future agreement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant in his response.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat: state spending actually declined in the first and second years of the agreements, by $500 million in 1993-94 and by $331 million in 1994-95. I inform the House that the following states and territories are still spending less on hospitals in 1997-98 than they were in 1992-93: Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. These are the facts. These are the unemotional, plain, straightforward facts. They demonstrate the fairness of the position that has been taken by the Commonwealth. I would be very happy to make available to the member for Dobell all of the graphs and all of the charts that verify the figures that I have used.During the five years of Labor's 1993 agreement, the Commonwealth spent $25,000 million on hospitals. The Department of Finance and Administration's forward estimates, based on the Labor Party's 1993 agreement, projected an expenditure of $27.3 billion over the following five years, but, under the coalition's offer, the Commonwealth will spend $30.3 billion over the five-year period of the new agreement. This represents an increase over Labor's forward estimates. So much for these claims that we have cut payments to the states in relation to hospital spending.What we are proposing to do is to spend an additional $2.9 billion over and above the Labor Party's forward estimates. That will provide for real growth of 6.9 per cent in 1998-98 and a 15.4 per cent increase over a period of five years. All of this is occurring in a climate of zero inflation and all of this is occurring at a time when the federal government is offering almost a five per cent increase in real terms in the general revenue payments that are flowing to the states under the taxation arrangement between the Commonwealth and the states.I understand and I sympathise with the responsibilities of the states in relation to public hospitals, but by no fair measure can it be said that the Commonwealth has neglected its responsibilities. The Commonwealth has made a fair offer, a decent offer, a generous offer. I say to the patients of Australia: we will honour that in full, we will not take away one single dollar, we will give you every dollar, every last cent, of the offer that I put on the table, which represents a massive further injection of federal government money. I thank the member for Dobell for his question.25222522West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the MUA has finished its strike in Brisbane and is tomorrow planning another seven-day strike in Sydney. Could you advise the House of the positions taking by various parties in support of this action?2523Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Bowman for her question. Over the weekend it was announced by the MUA that they will be taking further industrial action, this time going back to Sydney for another seven days of industrial action. This is on top of a series of strikes that the MUA has run in Sydney. It will take to well over 40 the number of days lost due to industrial action by the MUA against Patrick—all for the reason that Patrick decided, for commercial reasons, to sublet part of their property in Melbourne. This action by the MUA is condemned by this government.We point out the futility of this ongoing industrial action by the MUA. This is action taken by them because they oppose the concept of genuine competition. Elsewhere in the Australian economy, if someone set up business down the road, most people running a business would say, `We have got a bit of competition. What we have got to do is lift our game.' But, for the MUA, when there is a bit of competition, their response is, `We will take any action, legal or illegal, to close down our competitors. We will take any action whatsoever available to us to wreak havoc against those who support competition.'In the end, not only is this action by the MUA leadership futile but it undermines the security of the very people that it claims to represent—namely, the rank and file wharfies who work for Patrick. It is no wonder that the MUA has failed to gather any public support for its position. I think most Australians reckon that wharfies on $90,000 a year, on average $74,000 a year, with some earning more than $100,000 are on a very good wicket, which, I have to say, most people would not mind if they thought there was a decent day's work being done and if Australia's waterfront was as competitive as those with whom we compete. But, sadly, it is not. Not only does the government have strong support from the Australian public for waterfront reform but we have strong support right across the business community including, importantly, those importers and exporters who rely on an efficient waterfront.What else is interesting about this dispute—and what I think the MUA should take heed of—is the fact that they have very little support generally within the trade union movement. It was only last September that Bill Kelty, the Secretary of the ACTU, was saying that, if there was non-union labour introduced on the Australian waterfront, `you will have the biggest picket that has ever been assembled in this country'. The reason that the response has been limited from the ACTU is that in the Trade Practices Act we now have effective prohibitions against secondary and primary boycotts. Those strong new laws against sympathy strikes were put through the Senate by the government with the support of the Democrats and, in particular, Labor's star recruit, Cheryl Kernot. It is a continuing embarrassment to the Labor Party that their policy is to repeal the very provisions which have prevented the ACTU from running a wider campaign.If you go back over this dispute since it arose at the end of January, you will see that the one person we have not heard from is Bill Kelty. The reason is that this government has strong laws in place to deal with the industrial thuggery. The other notable feature of this dispute is the embarrassed silence from the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition, who, when confronted with industrial thuggery, is unable to come out and declare the national interest, in the same way that his gutter-like deputy was unable to come into this House today and give a full apology.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What about Parer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!WI4Mr REITH—The Leader of the Opposition again demonstrates that when it comes to the national interest he is unable to stand and speak on behalf of the mainstream of the Australian community.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—We have not heard from Parer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect! WI4Mr REITH—These two events are not unrelated. We have a weak Leader of the Opposition unable to enforce proper standards on his deputy, unable to deal with industrial thuggery on the Australian waterfront and whose only response is noise and abuse in this House. You can have as much noise and abuse as you like; your weakness is here, displayed for all to see.25242524Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the report on the front page of the West Australian this morning entitled `Public hospitals freeze spending'? It says:Metropolitan public hospitals have been ordered not to hire any more staff or buy new equipment because of the deepening health crisis.Are you also aware of Liberal Premier Richard Court's claim that your offer will leave his state worse off than the current Medicare agreements? In the light of the continuing crisis in Australia's public hospitals and the failure of the Medicare agreement negotiations so far, will you agree to the Commonwealth participating in good faith in the Senate inquiry into the Medicare agreements, which has been announced today, or are you scared that your claims of a 15 per cent real increase will be exposed as a fraud?2524Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I was saying in answer to the first question from the member for Dobell, the Commonwealth's offer, which involves an extra $2.9 billion over a period of five years, includes $369 million extra for hospital patient and outpatient services; it includes $479 million for mental health and palliative care; it includes $682 million to be passed on to providers to enhance the quality of patient services; it involves $750 million transfer to the Commonwealth of the cost of treating entitled veterans in hospitals.Even the New South Wales health minister, who turned up at the Premiers Conference utterly ignorant of the arrangement that had been offered by the Commonwealth, was forced to admit in the course of the Premiers Conference that the Commonwealth was effectively making double provision for the veterans. We not only are agreeing to pur chase health services for veterans but also are agreeing to include in the base for the calculation of the five-year agreement the veterans. In other words, there was a double provision in the arrangement that was offered by the Commonwealth in relation to veterans. Mr Refshauge is very busy trying to pass the buck. Whenever there is criticism of his administration of public hospitals in New South Wales, you have this sort of yapping mantra from the New South Wales health minister, Mr Refshauge; if there is ever any criticism of the New South Wales hospital system, he always says, `It is the fault of the federal government.'I repeat that the Commonwealth's offer involves real growth of 6.9 per cent in 1998-99, and 15.4 per cent over a period of five years. This graph so tellingly illustrates the growth in spending under the earlier Medicare agreement and then it shows the continued further growth under the five-year agreement that has been offered by the federal government.I would also inform the House that the offer that we have made to the states is an offer that will be fully honoured by the federal government. We will honour in full—without deduction—the offer that we have put on the table for the Australian people. We owe our obligation direct to the Australian people. We do not owe the obligation through the state governments. If we make a commitment to the Australian people—I made that commitment when the Treasurer and I took the offer to the Premiers Conference—we will honour that commitment in full.For the first time under this arrangement the Commonwealth is sharing with the states a number of risks. In addition to the extra $2.9 billion—that is $2.9 more than was in the forward estimates prepared by the former Labor government—the Commonwealth is taking on some of the financial risks that had previously been shouldered entirely by the states. For every percentage point private health insurance membership falls below 32 per cent, the Commonwealth will indemnify the states by a further $83 million per annum. For every percentage point hospital output costs exceed 0.5 per cent, the Commonwealth will pay an extra $44 million per annum.As I pointed out yesterday in Melbourne, the states are claiming $1.9 billion per annum on top of all extra funds offered by the Commonwealth. This would pay for an extra 300,000 people to go into hospital every year. However, there are only 120,000 people on waiting lists at any given time. The states, in other words, are making a claim that is very much in the ambit area. The offer we have made is a fair one. It is a decent offer. It is a reasonable offer. In the name of the interests of the Australian people, it ought to be accepted by the state governments, and they ought to abandon their campaign of political point scoring.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I request that the Prime Minister table the document from which he was quoting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Absolutely.MG4LEEMr Lee—including the graph which shows that hospital funding went backwards this year. It is the first time that we have had you concede that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. Prime Minister, do you table the document?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Absolutely, with my compliments.Distinguished Visitors252510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Forrest, I would like to extend a welcome to the Hon. Mr Derek Hanekom MP, Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, from South Africa, whose party is in our House today.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice252525252525Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, are you aware of recent media reports identifying different ways to use the proceeds of the sale of government owned businesses? What is the government's response to these proposals?2525Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—It is always a pleasure to be able to have the opportunity in this House and outside to recognise an achievement by one of my constituents. I believe the honourable member for Forrest is, on this occasion, referring to media reports that have emanated from a publication by the honourable member for Werriwa. That publication is entitled Civilising Global Capital . I have noted in respect of a chapter entitled `A Role for Government' that there is a clear difference highlighted in the different approaches taken by those opposite on the use of proceeds of assets sales. The member for Werriwa highlights what they did in government and he highlights what he says should happen. Under a subheading in that chapter `Ownership Neutrality', the member for Werriwa says:The liberalisation of capital markets has allowed governments to shift their fixed capital investments from markets featuring competitive private capital to the enhancement of human capital.It is difficult to know first up just what that means but I believe that what the member for Werriwa was saying—Opposition members interjecting—HQ5Mr FAHEY—Let me put it into simple English: there are better ways for government to spend their scare public capital—for example, on welfare, education and health—rather than spending that public capital on running businesses. Businesses are run by what the member for Werriwa calls competitive private capital which we on this side of the House are happy to say means `run by the private sector'. The member for Werriwa also goes on to say:I do not see a lasting role for the state public sector in the ownership of large slabs of industrial capital.He further says:It is possible for the public sector to vacate its ownership role without a loss of economic efficiency or social equity.They are very sound principles. We on this side of the House agree with those statements by the member for Werriwa. But the member for Werriwa goes on to concede that these were not the principles which drove the former government. When Labor were in government, they did not abide by these principles when they dealt with privatisation policies. Labor in government were driven by what the member for Werriwa says were `the exigencies of the budget bottom line'. The government agrees with the member for Werriwa: Labor privatised for all the wrong reasons. They were not interested in retiring debt; they were interested in funding recurrent expenditure. The member for Werriwa goes on to say `that questions of ownership should not be determined through fixed ideological preferences for either private or public sector activity.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the Opposition will remain silent. If you remain silent, we can hear the answer. At the moment there is too much noise in the House.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I take a point of order on relevance. We appreciate the lecture—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will direct his point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—but this goes to a question of relevance. He was asked a general question and he has devoted himself entirely to this. If this point needs to be made, perhaps he will tell us about the impact of the social bonus he intends from selling the people's assets in Telstra.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He is no longer making a point of order. The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.HQ5Mr FAHEY—The relevance is that the member for Werriwa is relevant and the rest of the frontbench are not relevant when it comes to policy. On the very question of whether or not questions of ownership should be determined through fixed ideological preferences, it is clear that the bulk of the members on the front bench of the Labor Party believe in ideological preferences. All I can say is that the government welcomes the contribution by the honourable member for Werriwa. We agree with most of what he says. Clearly, the rest of his colleagues are backward thinking; their role model is Arthur Calwell. 25262526Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask: given your frequent assertions that a wide-ranging tax debate with everything on the table is required by your government, why have you given instructions to your tax consultative task force, headed up by Senator Gibson, that they are not to entertain any consideration of the debit tax whatsoever, especially when your correspondence to me and your radio utterances demonstrate you know little about the tax? Have you not misled this House by giving this instruction?2526Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—No.25262526Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Young people in the Dunkley electorate are enthusiastic about the Natural Heritage Trust and about the expansion of apprenticeship opportunities under this government. Can the minister inform the House of the take-up of new apprenticeships?2526Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am very pleased to have the chance to respond to the honourable member for Dunkley, who has a great concern to expand opportunities for young people in his electorate. When this coalition took office in March 1996 we made a pledge to young Australians that we would create tens of thousands of new apprenticeship opportunities. Labor, as we know, had handed the apprenticeship system and the industry training system over to the trade union movement, and they had discouraged employers from giving young people these quality training opportunities. That is why they had to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into their short-term training schemes; they could not provide quality training opportunities.The coalition government is delivering on its pledge to young Australians. I am pleased to inform the House that there are now more young Australians in new apprenticeships than at any time in this country's history. The figures just released show that in the most recent quarter for which figures are available, September 1997, there were 177,209 young people in apprenticeships and traineeships, 41,000 more than in Labor's last year. That is a tremendous increase, because we have put in place industry training arrangements which actually appeal to business, including small businesses in the service sector.This year for the first time a young person can actually be paid for an apprenticeship while they are combining employment with their school studies and completing their senior certificate at the same time. This year alone we are now heading for over 100,000 people actually starting new apprenticeships. Labor's silence on this success has been deafening.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, rubbish!BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Hotham says `rubbish'. In the two years or so since the last election some 3,000 questions have been asked in this House. I asked myself: how many of these questions had come from the Labor Party on apprenticeship and quality training opportunities for young people?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Ten per cent?BT4Dr KEMP—Perhaps 10 per cent. Would it be 300, 100, 50, 20, 10 or two?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—It must at least be two.BT4Dr KEMP—One! One question was asked. That was from the member for Batman. The member for Werriwa, who had a temporary interest in TAFE last year, did not ask one question.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Where is he?BT4Dr KEMP—He is out doing further research, however divisive that will be on the Labor frontbench. It is quite clear that the member for Werriwa has not even had sufficient interest in apprenticeships to include in his 391-page volume a single reference to apprenticeships in the index to that book. Maybe his critics in the Labor Party are not so wrong when they say that he has not been attending to his portfolio, as the Australian discovered when they called in at his office on the weekend. In an article written by Richard McGregor, it says that the member for Werriwa was stewing over comments by an ALP colleague reported in the morning newspaper. The member for Werriwa is quoted as saying something, but I will not, out of respect for the House, use the word that he used. Some fool according to the paper said his views made Genghis Khan look like a social worker. Barely smiling, he said that Genghis Khan was not into training and education. Referring to his colleagues on the frontbench, he said that some of these dills ought to actually read the book. Which of the dinosaurs is the dill? He is out hunting; he is loading up the dinosaur gun outside the House at the moment, and he will be back shortly.One thing stands out: there has been absolutely no interest on that side of the House in opening up quality opportunities for young Australians.25272527Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the case of Mr Jones, a 60-year-old—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the government will remain silent. The member for Dobell has the call.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 144 says that questions should not contain statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary. With a name like Jones, it is pretty obvious it is not necessary. But I draw your attention to the fact that the member for Jagajaga was recently invited to take one of these cases to the minister, and she still failed to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The member for Dobell's question to date is in order.MG4Mr LEE—Prime Minister, are you aware of the case of Mr Jones, a 60-year-old man from the Illawarra, who has been informed that he will have to wait up to one year for emergency dental care because of the blow-out in dental waiting lists? Is the Prime Minister also aware that Mr Jones has attempted to repair his dentures with toxic superglue and is continuing to endure severe pain simply in order to eat? Prime Minister, will you now concede that the member for Gilmore was right when she said in her letter to you:Prime Minister, as you would understand, people do not stomach cuts to basic health needs particularly well. Indeed, they are outraged at our insensitivity.Prime Minister, will you now apologise to Mr Jones for the real pain caused by your $400 million cut in dental services?2528Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of the particular case.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Apologise!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the Opposition will remain silent.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Oh, apologies now!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Did I hear the member for Holt say something? Did I hear a word from the member for Holt?MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell needs to have a point of order.MG4LEEMr Lee—They are laughing at a 60-year old man who—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. I warn the honourable member for Dobell.UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—He's a joke.2528Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not think the honourable member for Dobell is a joke; I think that member is a joke.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will respond to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The answer is that I do not know the circumstance of the particular case. If the member wishes to send them to me, I will analyse what he has had to say. I am aware of a couple of things. I am aware of some statements that were made by the member for Fremantle when she was the minister for health. I am aware of the fact that she made the dental program, which the former government introduced, a four-year time specific. I am aware of the fact that public dental health is a state and territory responsibility.I wonder whether the member for Dobell in his confected outrage has bothered to raise any of these matters with Dr Andrew Refshauge, the minister with prime responsibility for such matters.25282528Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the measures that the government has taken to assist in the recovery of the Indonesian economy?2528Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. As the member for Petrie and other members of the House will know, the government has been concerned for some months to play a very active and supportive role in the recovery of the Indonesian economy. Amongst other things, I and my colleagues the Treasurer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have been very active in endeavouring to encourage the IMF and the United States government to adopt a realistic approach to the problems of the Indonesian economy.My understanding, and this is based in part on the conversation that I had with President Suharto on Saturday afternoon, is that the IMF program currently being negotiated in Jakarta is expected to be agreed some time this week. I welcome that and I welcome the more positive attitude that has been taken by the Indonesian government in recent weeks to meet the program laid down by the IMF. Whatever the conditions that are involved in the agreement, it is important that the central thrust of that agreement be honoured in full by the Indonesian government. In all of the discussions that I and my colleagues have had with the Indonesian government, we have stressed the central importance of the Indonesian government meeting the main elements of the IMF package.I indicated to President Suharto during that discussion—and I am pleased to inform the House of this—that, in response to a request from the IMF, Australia will be prepared to activate up to $US300 million out of the loan equivalent to $US1 billion which Australia pledged to support the IMF program for Indonesia in October 1997. We are prepared to bring that amount forward on the condition, of course, that the IMF program is fully accepted by Indonesia and that the agreement between Indonesia and the IMF is effectively negotiated. This commitment is in addition to the commitment that was announced by the minister for industry at the weekend, when he said that EFIC can offer export insurance cover on the national interest account for up to $380 million worth of cotton exports to Indonesia. We have also increased to $500 million the level of wheat exports which EFIC can cover.I stress in relation to both of these actions that what the Australian government has done will generate jobs in Australia, will protect existing jobs and will boost Australia's export income. At every stage of the action that Australia has taken in relation to Indonesia, Korea, Thailand and the other nations of the Asia-Pacific region, we have had in mind the legitimate self-interest of this country. We have had in mind the desire of the Australian people to see the jobs of Australians and the exports of Australian industries fully protected. We will continue to take whatever action is necessary to protect our farmers and to protect our other exporters who have such a very strong interest in the revitalisation and the recovery of the economies of the Asia-Pacific region.Our actions demonstrate the leadership that the government has shown in promoting an effective international response and encouraging a realistic and effective IMF and World Bank statement. That activity has involved not only personal discussions on my part with the President of Indonesia on several occasions but also a lengthy discussion on Friday evening with the Premier of China, Zhu Rongji, discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan some time ago and regular discussions with the Prime Minister of Singapore. The foreign minister has visited both Washington and Tokyo to very effectively put the government's point of view. The Treasurer has been in very regular contact with his counterparts as well as in regular discussion with the managing director of the international fund, Mr Camdessus.Strong international support is vital; but ultimately the Indonesian recovery depends on implementing the reform measures agreed with the International Monetary Fund. The credibility of Indonesia's commitment is crucial to regaining the confidence of international markets. That was a point that I emphasised in my discussion with President Suharto on Saturday afternoon. Indonesia, the world's fourth largest country, is not only a valuable economic partner of Australia but also a very valuable political and social partner of Australia, and is of immense strategic importance to Australia's future.The stability and the prosperity of Indonesia are matters of direct relevance to the national interest of Australia. That is why from the very beginning of her difficulties the Australian government has taken pains to ensure that there is an adequate, on the ground, practical, far-sighted understanding of the problems facing Indonesia. I believe that we have been very successful in getting that point of view across not only to the United States and the nations of Europe but also to the International Monetary Fund. As a consequence, the response of the United States, other countries and the International Monetary Fund has been more appropriate to the particular circumstances of Indonesia. Our understanding of that country has been very relevant to their reaching that point of view.25292529Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer: will you rule out the application of your proposed GST to medical and dental bills, private health insurance contributions, nursing home fees, and home and community care fees?2529Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As we have always said, our government believes in reforming the tax system. Our government will announce plans to reform the tax system when it is ready to do so. We urge you to have a think about your own policy. The thing that amazes us is that, of all the people in Australia who know the problems of the Australian taxation system, there is only one group of people that want to retain it; there is only one group of people that believe in the current Australian taxation system.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. The Treasurer had a specific question about whether or not he would rule out a set of services and whether or not they would have the application of a GST to them. It is yes or no, or wait and see. What he is going on with now is irrelevant to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This sort of question has been asked for years and the latitude extended to successive—RH4KERRMr Kerr—You can hardly say that you are leading the debate. You are running away from it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Denison will remain silent. The latitude extended to successive prime ministers and treasurers has been fairly extensive, as I recall.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Denison says that we do not lead debate. This is from the economic dinosaurs of the Australian Labor Party who have not produced a policy in two years. We know why it is that they go around with the smear and the slur: because in two years they have been unable to produce one single policy: no policy on budgetary matters, no policy on interest rates, no policy on tax—no policy on anything. They have specialised in the smear and the slur.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. The question asked them whether they are going to put a GST on medical bills and dental bills, private health insurance, nursing home fees, and home and community care fees. I have not heard a single answer on any one of them. And why not? What are you hiding?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There has been—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will resume its silence.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the government are silent, I will call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We know what the Leader of the Opposition is hiding: he is hiding his deputy. His rather ample frame tries to cover him up in every question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We read from Malcolm Farr that he has now been banned from doing doorstops in the morning.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was: is this GST going to apply to medical and dental bills, private health insurance contributions, nursing home fees, and home and community care fees? The Treasurer is doing everything but answer that. What is he hiding?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. Members of the opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The answer is a very simple one: when is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition going to apologise? That is the question here.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise—CT4Mr COSTELLO—And when are you going to make him?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, could I suggest to the Treasurer that it is probably now time that he returned to the question put to him.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Saved him again.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, saved him again. Oh, oh, oh! Exaggerated laughter! The people of Australia want to know this: when are you going to show some leadership? When?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will answer the question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes, exactly. Answer the question: are you going to put a GST on medical and dental bills?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will tell you what this government is going to do: this government is going to rescue the Australian taxation system, this government is going to give a go to ordinary wage and salary earners, this government is going to take Australia into the new century and this government is going to deliver the kinds of benefits for home owners that they deserve and were denied by the Labor Party.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the House will be silent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. When you are ready, we will proceed with question time.25312531Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to recent reports about the state of the Japanese economy. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the latest developments in the Japanese economy?2531Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question and the opportunity to speak about the government's response to international economic developments. In 1997 the Japanese economy slowed to 0.9 per cent growth, with a negative growth in the last quarter of 1997. For 1998 Consensus Economics forecasts are predicting 0.1 per cent growth, with a possible negative growth in the first part of the year. Net export growth is expected to remain positive but to weaken as the year progresses.Attention has focused in the last couple of days on a business expectations survey released on 2 April showing a sharp decline in sentiment and on an announcement last Friday by the international ratings agency Moody's that it was putting a negative watch, downgrading from stable to negative, on Japanese sovereign debt.As a consequence of these measures, attention has focused on the Japanese economy over the last couple of days. From the government's point of view, we welcome moves by the Japanese authority to stimulate the Japanese economy. The government has announced five packages since October last year, including a number of fiscal measures designed to boost domestic activity and restore consumer and business confidence. Key elements of the packages include stimulating domestic demand, five trillion yen; one per cent of GDP worth of fiscal tax measures; and the recently announced additional package of 16 trillion yen, or three per cent of GDP, largely bringing forward planned public works expenditure to the first half of the year with the possibility of further personal income tax cuts.Over the weekend there have been reports from the ASEM summit in London and indeed from G7 summit meetings that the G7 has encouraged the Japanese government to engage in fiscal measures to boost the Japanese economy. The Australian government shares the concerns which were raised by the G7 at its late February meeting and most recently at the ASEM summit about the delay in economic recovery in Japan.We are, however, encouraged by the fact that the government has recognised the importance of stimulatory action, and we are encouraged by the fact that the government seems determined to stimulate domestic demand and take further measures, which will of course improve the outlook for the economy. The government also welcomes measures which would speed up structural reform in Japan, which would open its markets, which would give it the opportunity for increased productivity and particularly structural reform for the financial sector, which are obviously very important.From Australia's point of view, it is in the interests of Australia for a strong Japan. Japan is certainly our most important trading nation. It has a large effect on the Australian economy. It has been flat for a very long period, and those measures which can be done and should be undertaken we would encourage the government to do to stimulate domestic demand.25312531Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question to the Treasurer follows the previous one. Treasurer, given that you have not ruled out in that very lengthy answer of yours a GST on medical and dental bills, private health insurance contributions, nursing home fees and home and community care fees, will you now rule out a GST on school and university fees and a GST on HECS?2532Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We regard these sorts of questions as the silly little debating tricks that they are designed to be—it is the most obvious trick in the world—silly little debating tricks such as, `Will you say that it is going to rain tomorrow?' and when you do not say anything it is proof that it is going to rain, and when asked whether the sun will come out tomorrow you say that you will wait until tomorrow to see it, the sun is not going to come out. It would be entirely different if, in two years, you had produced one single policy, but the only policy thinking that has gone on amongst the economic dinosaurs of the Labor Party—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent! The Treasurer will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I asked whether he would rule out a GST on school and university fees and, in particular, HECS. He is irrelevant to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have not called you yet!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, Good. All right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the House will remain silent. I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance. I asked whether he would rule out a GST on school and university fees—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The answer is entirely relevant.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And he is doing anything but talking about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is entirely relevant to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We have seen these debating tricks before and we are very famili ar with them. Mr Speaker, let me tell you when these debating tricks reached their zenith. Debating tricks like these reach their zenith from political outfits which have no policy and no thinking. I do not think I have ever seen a leader humiliated by a frontbencher before in the way you have been.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will return to answering the question.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is entirely relevant.RH4KERRMr Kerr—The point of order is that the debating trick is a question; we want an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his seat. The Treasurer is adopting the same form as many of his predecessors.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The reason why these debating tricks reach their height is that, in two years, can anybody think of any policy development from the Australian Labor Party? Have they produced a policy on the economy? Have they produced a policy on interest rates?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will answer the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Have they produced a policy on anything? Never in my life have I seen the necessity for a frontbencher of an opposition to write a book recommending policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will return to the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order: the Treasurer is ignoring your request for him to answer the specific question, Mr Speaker. He is turning his back; he is insulting to you; he is failing to answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will make a judgment on that. The member for Hotham will resume his seat!DT4CREANMr Crean—I ask you to require him to answer with a simple yes or no.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat!CT4Mr COSTELLO—One of the reasons why we welcome the policy thinking in the Australian Labor Party is this—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member is entirely in order, as you know.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Entirely in order—thank you.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He is not relevant to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is entirely relevant. This is a practice that has been going on for years.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent, I will call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They do not want to hear it. The one policy that we have from the Australian Labor Party in the book from the frontbencher—the member for Werriwa—said what on tax? He said we ought to tax consumption. That is what he said. No amount of yelling and no amount of babble—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The people at home cannot see this, but you have a Leader of the Opposition who sits here and yells at the top of his voice incessantly. The reason he does it is that he thinks it is a substitute for policy. He has no policy, and the only person in the Australian Labor Party who thought for a moment said that you were wrong and we were right.25332533Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister outline to the House the outcomes of the meeting last week of the Cairns Group of Trade Ministers and further advise the House of the likely future of agricultural reform for Australian farmers as a result of that meeting?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in the last few days in this parliament, we have had a situation where things that ought to be ministerial statements have been asked and answered as questions. This is a matter that ought to be debated in this parliament and it should properly be a ministerial statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. There is certainly room for ministerial statements, but the question is entirely in order.2533Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—It is a pleasure to answer the question from the member for McEwen, and to do so in the presence of the South African Minister for Agriculture. South Africa is the newest member of the Cairns Group of Nations and made a very worthwhile contribution to the deliberations in Sydney last week. In the case of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it has to be said that words are bullets.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I hear the interjection from the member for Holt. Thank you very much, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If you had remembered this last week, you would not have made that huge gaff for which you should have apologised at 12.30 today. I think I should also tell the House that the member for Holt made a further comment on 3GI radio at Sale this morning. The journalist said:Just a final comment, Mr Evans. No matter how much we try to avoid it, there will always be gaffs in public life. Your comment re Mr Howard hasn't gone over that well.The reply by the member for Holt, who interjected on my answer, was:I think it should be seen in the particular context which was my reaction to what I thought was a very tacky and insensitive response by John Howard.The member for Holt was literally jigging around in the parliament, grinning broadly and slapping his thighs when someone brought in a note. You should be at the box and apologising completely for that kind of language. You should be apologising completely. None of this partial apology that we had recorded by AAP; you should be apologising completely.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will return to the question he was asked.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Mr Speaker, I was irritated by this former Minister for Foreign Affairs. He is the only guy who has ever gone to the Middle East and managed to get the Arabs and the Israelis offside during the one trip.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister was talking about the Cairns Group discussions last week, I thought.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Not only was it a very constructive meeting, it also led to a unanimous communique and vision statement by the Cairns Group. It prepared the way for the World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture, due in 1999, and the second ministerial of the WTO, to take place in Geneva next month. The three fundamental issues highlighted by the Cairns group were: firstly, there is no justification in maintaining destructive and market distorting export subsidies which undermine agricultural produces and exporters; secondly, market access for agricultural products should be on the same conditions as those applying to other goods; and, thirdly, overall levels of domestic support for agriculture are far in excess of subsidies available to other industries—indeed, they totalled over $US280 billion last year.When a farmer arrived from Coventry in Britain to attend a Nuffield conference, I said, `How did you travel?' He said, `British Airways, first class.' I said to him, `You must be having a good season on your 3,000 acres.' He said, `No. Just before I made my British Airways booking for a first-class air ticket from London to Brisbane, my EU subsidy cheque arrived in the mail.' I said, `Would you mind telling me how much that cheque was?' He said £300,000—$500,000—on an annualised basis.' That is why the Cairns Group is making a strong stand against export subsidisation, against the subsidies of the common agricultural policy.In conclusion, the Cairns Group also, in the course of a busy 2½ days, had the privilege of briefly breaking off to visit the Botanical Gardens and the Royal Agricultural Society at the new Homebush site, a magnificent site. We travelled not by motor car but by a form of public transport. The other thing we did—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. When we have some silence, the Deputy Prime Minister can continue.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—By ferry. I wanted to go by train. The Cairns Group also met with Dan Glickman, the US Secretary for Agriculture, during the course of the meeting in Sydney. We were able to obtain from him two things. Firstly, the US remains 100 per cent committed to the elimination of export subsidies—a very timely renewal of that commitment. Secondly, the US congress, in his belief, will not approve any EU-US transatlantic trade proposal currently under discussion in the corridors of Brussels and Washington without the inclusion of agriculture. If the member for Hotham just remembered from the days when he was minister for primary industry, he would remember that half the battle is to get agriculture onto the main negotiating table of the World Trade Organisation. We are following through in a very systematic way. The Cairns group was a particularly successful meeting in building further progress in this regard.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations253415:41:002534Beazley, 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—I was misrepresented by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) when he said that we had somehow done a backflip on policy in relation to private health insurance contributions. We have always said that the $1.7 billion should stay in the system. We reserve the right to make any alterations to it that we see fit, to make it actually an incentive that causes people to take up private health insurance or relieve pressure on public hospitals instead of the utter failure that it has been.Questions to the Speaker253525352535Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Mr Speaker, it is a matter of concern that the affairs of this House are becoming an object of ridicule in the wider community. It seems to arise from the behaviour of the frontbenchers from both sides. This seems to be a conflict between the standing orders and the precedents set by past behaviour in this House. Will you consider liaising with the Procedure Committee to apply the standing orders to the frontbench so that they are treated the way private members of this House are? Then perhaps we can get some standards back into the place.2535Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. It has concerned me beyond that that there are virtually two parts of the House and that it is very difficult down that end for people to participate. I think all members should take on board the concerns of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie.25352535Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Mr Speaker, have you seen the advertisement in the Weekend Australian of 4-5 April inserted in the name of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inviting submissions for its inquiry into the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 ? How is it possible for a Senate committee to conduct such an inquiry into a bill which has not been presented to the Senate? As you would know, the second reading debate is an order of the day on today's House of Representatives Notice Paper . While I can understand that it might suit the convenience of the government for the Senate to anticipate the passage of the bill through the House unamended, surely the action of the Senate is not conducive to the proper consideration of legislation by each house in a bicameral parliament, which arguably should be done separately and independently of the other but not concurrently? 2535Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member, but I point out to him that proceedings of the other place are for it to determine and not for us. I will take his question on notice and reply further.25352535McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I wanted to raise with you a question and seek clarification from you concerning consistency of interpretation. On 11 March this year, at page 697 of Hansard , you ruled that the word `deceit' was an allegation that had to be withdrawn. You said that it was offensive against a particular person who is a member of parliament. Yet today the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs used that term in reference to a member of parliament, referring to `constant deceit'. I understand that you may not have heard, but I would ask you, in the circumstance where there was no point of order raised on the other occasions but rather you acted on your initiative on that matter, to perhaps look at the Hansard and listen to the tapes and see if you can respond to the House in terms of consistency of interpretation in these matters.2535Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would point out to the honourable member that standing order 152 says:. . . questions without notice may be put to the Speaker relating to any matter of administration for which he or she is responsible.As far as possible within the interpretation of standing orders, there should be consistency. If there is not, then I will attempt to ensure that that should not be so. I did not hear the word, but I believe there are a number of words used in this place which do not help to raise the standard or the tone, and I certainly did not hear that word used today.25352535Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question goes to administration in the House and the need for consistency. Mr Speaker, do you recall saying on 21 December 1988 to the chair: `You are a disgrace'? The statement was not withdrawn. If it was good enough for you to say that then, why was it not good enough for me to say the exact same words last Thursday? On the question of consistency, how do you explain what would, to any fair-minded person, be one rule for you and another rule for me?2536Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member should read the standing orders. If he does so, he will see under standing order 303:If any Member has . . . persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House; or been guilty of disorderly conduct . . . that Member may be named by the Speaker.You were named in accordance with standing order 303.25362536Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 150, I would ask you to write to the Treasurer and ask whether he would trouble to respond to my question No. 2576, placed on the Notice Paper on 1 December 1997.2536Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall do as the honourable member requested.25362536Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I would like to raise again this week another question which I addressed to the Prime Minister, question No. 2508, on 18 November 1997. I wonder whether you would write to the Prime Minister requesting him to answer that question.2536Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall happily do so.253610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:25364682KL6 CK6 MG4Andren Peter MP; Hardgrave Gary MP; Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of the legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail fair competition by restricting permissible statements in adver tising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren(from 4,565 citizens)Mr HardgraveCK6Mr Hardgrave(from 24 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 93 citizens)25363075A5 UK6Brown Bob MP; Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, decisions by the Howard Government to prohibit use of the term `drug free' in describing and advertising vitamin and herbal remedies.The decision will disadvantage all Australians who use or provide alternate and complementary health products. It is discriminatory.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse this decision immediately.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 180 citizens)Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 127 citizens)253688EZ5Abbott Tony MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that Family Planning Australia and its state affiliates promote explicit sex-education programs in schools which:Encourage the practice of oral sex.Emphasise choice, but present sex as fun and provide explicit descriptions (including pictures) of ways to get the most pleasure out of sex.Encourage teenagers to masturbate and engage in group sex.Deny the risk of cancer associated with `the pill'.Encourage those with HIV or Aids to keep having sex.Promote abortion and issue no warning about post abortion syndrome. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray for the removal of all funding to all Family Planning Australia associations and affiliates since it is clear that such funding is detrimental to the mental and physical health of our children and the future of our nation.And your petitioners as duty bound will ever pray.Mr AbbottEZ5Mr Abbott(from 88 citizens)2537176ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—particularly the financial impact these changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 176 citizens)2537133ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these charges be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payments or extra daily fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 133 citizens)2537525A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of Australia notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which pro vides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised Government tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 52 citizens)2537525A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that: the Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable; fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs; the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs; the Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 52 citizens)2537397T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the widespread opposition which exists in western Sydney over the planned development of a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek; the damage to people's health and quality of life that will accompany such a development, and the Federal Government's failure to seriously re-examine other alternative and more suitable sites for an airport outside the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Federal Government to discontinue its plans to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek and that it immediately begins a serious re-examination of the suitable airport sites outside the Sydney basin.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 39 citizens)2538210MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House their serious concerns at the proposal to build an airport at Badgerys Creek. Your petitioners respectfully request that the project not be proceeded with and that any such airport be built outside the Sydney Basin.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 210 citizens)2538754G4Downer Alexander MPThis is Australia, not AmericaSay `no' to the introduction of an American health care systemTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia, residents of the state of South Australia draws to the attention of the House to:The creation of an American Health Care System in Australia through the empowerment of health insurance companies through legislation known as the Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance Reform) Amendment Act 1994 to conscript doctors and to dictate terms and conditions of treatment of patients with private health insurance and to exclude categories of illness from health insurance products and to divulge to the Commonwealth Government the personal details of illnesses for which hospitalisation is required.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House should reject or repeal the above legislation.Mr Downer4G4Mr Downer(from 75 citizens)253822K26Latham Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for all Australians.Mr LathamK26Mr Latham(from 22 citizens)2538312HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of certain electors of the Division of Shortland draws to the attention of the House that residents of the East Lake Macquarie area would suffer serious difficulty and inconvenience if the Belmont Medicare office is closed.Your petitioners request the House to require the government to ensure that Belmont Medicare office remains open.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 312 citizens)253894HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at the Howard Government's decision to close Belmont Medicare Office. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office will cause serious difficulty and hardship to the residents of the East Lake Macquarie area, especially to lower-income and less-able residents.Residents will no longer be able to get immediate cash refunds of doctors fees to enable them to purchase required pharmaceuticals from nearby pharmacies and will thereby be unfairly disadvantaged.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House call on the Howard Government to reverse its decision to close Belmont Medicare Office and to cease its dismantling of Medicare Services.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 94 citizens)2538407WI4Reith Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the need for the Government to assist with funding the bone marrow donor institute cord blood bank. Hospitals currently dispose of blood from the umbilical cord, after a birth, which could give new hope to children with Leukaemia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider financial assistance to augment the efforts of community fundraising to establish cord blood banks in every capital city.Mr ReithWI4Mr Reith(from 407 citizens)2538114ZT4Somlyay Alex MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the sweeping new powers to control advertising with the Therapeutic Goods Regulation (TGR) named CODEX. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives in Parliament allow us the freedom of choice which we believe is our democratic right.And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray.Mr SomlyayZT4Mr Somlyay(from 114 citizens)2539668UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely difficult trading environment that small business confronts in Australia. Many thousands of small businesses are suffering from harsh, unfair and oppressive conduct at the hands of retail landlords, franchisors, oil companies and large retail chains. As a result many hard working small businesses are being driven to the wall, which inevitably leads to more unemployment, illness and destruction of the Australian family.We also draw the House's attention to the recommendations of the Fair Trading Inquiry which provides a solution to the aforementioned problems and ask for its immediate implementation. We, the undersigned request the House to organise immediate compensation for Ex-traders, forced out of business through the horrendous misrepresentation, victimisation, intimidation and unconscionable conduct of landlords, and to bring in retrospective Legislation.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 668 citizens)2539262ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 262 citizens)253925ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:(1) That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore, your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.(2) We support the action of the Mayor and Council of Concord in demanding that the new flight paths over the Municipality of Concord should cease immediately and the government honours its pre-election promise limiting the implementation of new flight paths.(3) Citizens of Concord demand that the federal government addresses its responsibility to provide for proper air services with minimal impact on residential areas.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 25 citizens)253973ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of NSW draws to the attention of the House our concerns at the withdrawal of the operational subsidies to community-based non-profit child care centres that has resulted in a reduction of enrolments, a substantial increase in fees, a reduction in staff and/or staff hours, cuts to staff training and/or replacement of staff with lower qualified staff and other similar deleterious effects too numerous to mention in this petition.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reinstate the operational subsidies at the May 1998 Budget.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 73 citizens)253944ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of NSW draws to the attention of the House our concerns at the rumours circulating that the operational subsidies for Family Day Care Centres are to be removed at the May Budget, and also call for the retention of the operational subsidies to Outside School Hours Child Care Centres, due to be removed at the end of April 1998.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 44 citizens)Petitions received.Bills2540r459Consideration resumed from 23 March.254015:51:002540Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Guaranteeing workers' entitlements in the event of company insolvency is one of the most important reforms yet to be undertaken by an Australian government. Australia has a fine record when it comes to the introduction of social legislation. We were one of the first countries in the world to introduce worker's compensation, and we were the first to grant child endowment payments to mothers and introduce long service leave to workers. And yet, when it comes to guaranteeing workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency or providing them with the utmost priority against all other creditors, Australia has neither. The rest of the world has passed us by. In this respect, our proud tradition of social reforms stands diminished.Guaranteeing workers' entitlements is a social reform for our time. The recent tragic stories of the miners at Cobar and Goulburn and of the meatworkers at Grafton remind us of that. None of us needs to be convinced that Australians have never before felt less secure in their jobs. As Asia's economic woes begin to have their effect on our shores, business insolvencies are destined to increase dramatically.This bill seeks to reform an aspect of Australian industrial relations that can no longer be set aside. We can no longer enjoy the luxury of sitting in this House and expressing our sympathy to workers left without their entitlements and saying: `Oh yes, something needs to be done to stop this happening in the future,' and then wait for somebody else to do it. With this bill, I am doing some thing about it. With this bill I am giving the government and other members the opportunity to do something about it as well.As it stands at the moment, at least 3,000 Australian workers are owed roughly $20 million in their legal entitlements due to company insolvency. This is a disgraceful figure, but it should not be a surprising one. It is estimated that 13,000 businesses and companies become insolvent each year in this country, leaving at least 20,000 workers out of a job. Of course not all of these ex-employees are left without their accrued entitlements but a good many are.In 1993 the Labor government, supported by the coalition and by both unions and employer groups, relegated the Commissioner of Taxation to the category of `unsecured creditor', thereby improving the position of unpaid employees for priority of payment in the event of an employer's insolvency. This was an important and commendable reform. However, in hindsight, it has not proved as successful as was first hoped. Employees have continued to miss out on their entitlements for the simple reason that, if a bankrupt enterprise no longer has any assets, the workers, whatever their position in an order of priority, do not benefit.The Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 aims to rectify this situation by establishing a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and other liabilities in the event of insolvency. Under the scheme, no Australian worker need ever again be left without entitlements should his or her employer collapse into insolvency. Unless exempt under the legislation, all employers must take out and maintain a policy of wage protection insurance for their work force with an approved insurer. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will administer the scheme. In the event of an employer's insolvency, workers will be insured for unpaid wages, annual leave or long service leave, liabilities resulting from the termination of employment without notice or with insufficient notice and liabilities for repayment of any amounts paid by the employee to the employer for training in a particular trade or profession. One of the most important aspects of the scheme is that it will include a bad risk cross-subsidisation system to help offset the concerns of employers and the insurance industry.I am well aware that there will always be some employers who are perceived by the insurance industry as potential bad risks. If this concern were allowed to manifest itself without regulation, some employers would find it very difficult to obtain insurance cover or, if they did obtain it, it would be prohibitively expensive. As a way around this problem, the bill requires approved insurers participating in the scheme, along with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, to participate in a bad risk cross-subsidisation system.Under such a program, an insurer would be required to accept an insurance proposal—even from an employer considered a bad risk—at a rate of premium not exceeding a maximum fixed by the commissioner. In order to mitigate the harshness of this from the insurer's point of view, the bad risk cross-subsidisation scheme would allow for the transfer of the burden of bad risks away from the individual insurer to the total body of insurers.Critics of my bill have argued that it would place an unfair extra financial burden on all employers to make up for the unscrupulous actions of a few. My response to that is twofold. Firstly, I do not consider the estimated extra 0.1 to 0.3 per cent of an employer's total wages bill that they would be required to contribute to participate in the scheme to be an unfair burden. It would certainly not be a burden of the stature that has been discussed: impeding a business' growth, the hiring of their staff or indeed hastening their own insolvency. Secondly, all employers are members of a corporate community. As a community they have a number of social responsibilities and one of those is seeing that all of their workers, in return for their labour, receive the entitlements that they are owed. Obviously we have seen that, at the present time, there are occasions when that responsibility is not being met. Employers have to work as one to address this issue, to live up to their responsibilities. Participation in this scheme should be seen in that respect.However, if the government is uneasy about socialising the burdens of insolvency by passing the responsibility of risk on to all members of the corporate community, it has a number of options open to it. One would be to amend my bill to require participation in the scheme only by those employers who did not enter formal arrangements to place their employee's entitlements in trust. Another would be to amend this bill to require lending institutions to pay for maintaining their privileged position at the top of the creditor preference queue. If the government were to underpin my scheme by firstly taking contributions from the banks, payments required from employers would be substantially reduced.Since I introduced this bill into the House a fortnight ago, the response I have received has been extremely positive. I have received many expressions of support from members, not only from my own side but also from the government's side as well as from the community at large. Australians, not just those workers who have lost their entitlements but I think the great majority of the people we represent, want to put an end to this sort of unfairness taking place. I think most of us recognise that fact. By supporting this bill, members can put this vexing problem behind this country once and for all. As long as this reform remains undone, thousands of ordinary Australian workers and their families will continue to be failed by a system they look to for justice, fairness and equity.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said just last week, in relation to legislative reform:There'll be people running around saying, `Oh, don't do it—it's too hard'. I mean, you can't go on forever saying that. We know everything's a bit difficult if it's a big reform, but the Australian people in the long run will respect you and support you if you have a go.I invite the Prime Minister and the members of his government to heed his advice and act on this matter with the utmost urgency. The opposition, I know, stands ready to give him that support. I commend this bill to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:58:002542Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I rise this afternoon for my contribution to this debate firstly to thank the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) for bringing this private member's bill, the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 , in front of the parliament. This is an issue that has occupied her mind—and indeed, I suspect, her heart—for some time. It is an issue that she has raised in this place at a prior time, so it is not with surprise that I found that the member had brought in front of us a bill to consider as a private member's bill.I think private members' bills are very important. I know in my six years in opposition in this place I brought in front of the parliament two private members' bills and they were relatively early in my time here. The first of those was to introduce voluntary membership of associations. While the then government refused to even allow significant debate on that bill, when we came to government, with the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and its enforcement on 31 December 1996, I got my wish and fulfilled the intent of my private member's bill, into which I had put so much time and effort. We got it and we have it today. You can see it in every newspaper in the land today as we debate the waterfront issue.The second of my private members' bills came good too, but in a strange sort of way. I proposed that what was then section 299(1)(d)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 be excised because it said, in essence, that it was an offence to say something naughty about a commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission or the commission itself. It said: if you do, then you may pay a fine or go to gaol or both. Members will recall the High Court case of Nationwide News wherein the High Court found that that section of the Industrial Relations Act was in fact in violation of the constitution because—as I had reported to this House on a number of occasions—it violated freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So the then Labor Party in government turned around and introduced its own amendment to the Industrial Relations Act to take care of that disparity which I had brought to their attention on an earlier occasion. Two bills, two wins.I wish the honourable member for Prospect well too. I noted that in her contribution she said—I assume in all sincerity—that, if the bill requires amendment, if there is a different approach that will work better, she would be happy to participate and accept that, as long as we could get something that worked. I happen to agree with the member for Prospect: I think this is an important issue; I think we need to address it. I think, for too long, we have not totally addressed it.To give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that the last Labor government did improve the situation somewhat—and I have forgotten the year. I think an amendment was brought in in 1995 in order to give employees a kick up the ladder in terms of unsecured creditors—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It was 1993.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—over the top of the Commissioner of Taxation. I thank the honourable member for Prospect for her interjection of 1993, my memory being not the best there. But, in any case, as I said, I acknowledge the fact that you did that in government.I will also tell you, as you know and I know, that you did not go any further because this is an extremely difficult issue. I am sure that the honourable member for Prospect and, indeed, the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), who will follow me in this brief debate, would acknowledge that there is nothing about this issue that is easy. I have read a Lateline transcript from a couple of weeks ago. Participating in those discussions were union officials and my colleague the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), and I have to say they were held without acrimony. In those discussions, everybody agreed that legally this is very difficult.I will tell you a couple of the reasons why I think the issue is difficult. I agree with you that employees have their rights. If they are entitled to wages, they are entitled to them. If they are entitled to other benefits which they have accrued during their term of employment, they are entitled to them. They should be legally protected—and, to the extent to which we can, they are at the moment. That is what makes this such a heartbreaking and difficult issue.There are other individuals who form groups, if you will, who also have the same kinds of rights, and they face the same kind of difficulty. One of those groups is contractors and subcontractors who exist not just in building construction but across increasingly broad reaches of industry. These are the true small business people of Australia. They are not shopkeepers, but they frequently provide services. They might be computer programmers. They might be carpenters, plumbers or bricklayers. They might have and drive a small truck. They might, indeed, mow people's lawns or clean people's houses as a small independent contractor or subcontractor working for a larger collective.From my own experience, I can tell you that it is very tough when, under the terms of a contract, if you have gotten very far into it, someone in the chain goes belly up; it makes life pretty difficult. I feel absolutely for the people at Cobar. I have felt for myself as a building contractor over almost a couple of decades when I had a few—very few, thank goodness; but every once in a while, you make a mistake and pick the wrong one—go belly up. And chances are that you have not held enough money out of the subcontract, because they have been pushing you hard for payment because obviously they have needed payment, and that is why they went bust.The other part of the issue is you then have to find someone else to finish the work that they were doing, and that is always more expensive than it would have been with the original contractor or subcontractor. I have lost tens of thousands of dollars in my time in business because people went bankrupt and there was no money to pay. The third lot that I refer to is other unsecured creditors who come further down the line than do employees who are on wages or, indeed, do the Australian Commissioner of Taxation.This bill provides employee protection against employer insolvency by establishing a scheme of wage protection insurance. The scheme would require an employer to insure its work force with an insurer approved by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. Insurance then would form the basis of employee protection in circumstances where an employer becomes insolvent and cannot pay accrued entitlements.`Insolvency' is broadly defined to include circumstances where a company or an individual is unable to pay debts but formal steps towards insolvency have not been taken. Under the bill the protection afforded to employees extends to an employer's liability for unpaid wages, payment in lieu of notice where termination of employment has occurred without notice or with insufficient notice, annual leave and long service leave, and repayment of any premium paid by an employee to an employer for training expenses.I am advised that the bill is probably constitutionally invalid, at least to the extent that it purports to rely on the Commonwealth's powers to make laws with respect to insurance, bankruptcy and insolvency. The Commonwealth's constitutional power to make laws in respect of corporations would support the bill to the extent to which it required employers who were corporations to take out employee protection insurance.Similarly, the Commonwealth's power to make law with respect to the territories would support the scheme in respect of unincorporated employers therein. However, the bill purports to apply to all employers in Australia, other than Commonwealth, state, territory or local government employers. To the extent that the bill purports to apply to unincorporated employers in the states, it is beyond power.The bill defines `wages' to include `any payment made, or to be made, by an employer to or for the benefit of an employee under a contract of employment'. The definition of `wages' would not capture the payment to be made to an employee pursuant to a federal award and may not cover payments pursuant to an Australian workplace agreement or certified agreement. Accordingly, such entitle ments would not be indemnified. An example of an entitlement that would not be guaranteed is severance pay due to an employee pursuant to a federal award or agreement. The bill, therefore, does not achieve its stated purpose of wage protection.The bill defines the concepts of bankruptcy and insolvency broadly, so the bill would apply to some entities that would not be regarded as bankrupt or insolvent under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or the Corporations Law. In other words, formal steps to effect insolvency or bankruptcy need not be taken before an employee becomes entitled to pursue a claim. This means that an employee could make a claim against an insurer simply because an employer is unable to pay its debts at a given point in time.For instance, an employee with accrued annual leave might become aware that his or her employer is unable to pay a debt in the short term. The bill would permit the employee to make a claim for payment in respect of that annual leave in anticipation of a possible insolvency by the employer. Thus, the scheme proposed by the bill has the potential to become an alternative avenue to the enforcement of wages through court processes. The bill also contemplates and fails to safeguard against frivolous or vexatious claims, that is, claims for payment in circumstances where a company is temporarily unable to pay its debts as opposed to being insolvent.In her second reading speech to the bill, the member for Prospect made the assertion that the money required from employers, not only to insure their workers but also to cover the scheme's administration costs, would be an extra one-tenth of one per cent of their total wages bill. I am advised that it is not possible even in general terms to assess the validity of the honourable member's statement in the absence of information as to the number of employers to be covered by the scheme and the relative risks involved. Even if that information were available, the process of verification would still take a significant period. This gives rise to the question of how the honourable member made her calculations and whether they have any real basis.While some overseas countries have established wage guarantee schemes, I am advised there is no example of any other country introducing a compulsory insurance scheme along the lines of that proposed by the member for Prospect. I have examined the United Kingdom bill and the ramifications of those several acts that work together to form the basis of insurance for employees. I have to say that it is on the basis of both employees and employers contributing and there being very strict limited liability.I asked the question as to why Great Britain agreed. The United States has no similar system and most major industrialised Western countries—except Western Europe—have no such system. I am advised such a system in Western Europe, with its long tradition and history of socialisation of the work force—that is, labour coming together and providing a complete bureaucratic structure as the counterpoint to the bureaucratic structure of capital—does not exist outside of Western Europe but certainly does there.I am afraid I have to say that the financial burden placed on good employers to subsidise bad employers has the possibility of becoming inequitable. If insurers are required to issue premiums and rates not exceeding a maximum set by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, then we may be squeezing insurers inequitably. There will be additional administration and cost burdens placed on employers by this act, and no-one denies that.The government's response is that it will explore this issue at the labour ministers council on 1 May and take into account all the words of the member for Prospect. The minister and the government will consult with the business community on the totality of this issue. (Time expired)16:13:002544McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I have great pleasure in rising to support the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) in her initiative in introducing the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 . Somebody had to act in this matter. The government should have acted; it is a pity they did not. Their attention and focus in industrial relations is elsewhere, where they pursue their particular obsessions.There are thousands upon thousands of Australian employees losing not only their jobs but their legally guaranteed entitlements. This has been highlighted at Cobar and it has happened at Woodlawn near Goulburn, Grafton, Rockhampton, Yeppoon and in the member for Prospect's own electorate, and there are tens of other examples affecting thousands of other workers who have not had the publicity. Somebody had to act, and it is to the credit of the member for Prospect that she took the initiative.What we have here is not just a grave injustice which is apparent but a grave injustice which has now come starkly to our attention in a way that it has not done until very recently. The publicity surge, which I welcome, has in fact occurred only in the last months. It does not mean that this is a new problem, it is the new face of an old problem, but we all know it exists. It will not ultimately be resolved until the government acts to resolve it.I do not accept many of the criticisms made of the bill by the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), but I accept, and the member for Prospect accepts, that this bill is probably not perfect. I do not think all of the criticisms that are made are right. It is a typical brief one gets from a public servant when you say, `Raise all the things that might possibly be wrong with this bill.' Australia has a very efficient Public Service and they very loyally serve the government of the day, so they raise all the queries that anybody could imagine. But they stretched some of them a long way, contrary to the legal advice that the member for Prospect has received about many of the constitutional aspects and other elements of this bill.Some initiative was necessary. The government was not and is still not acting. The member for Prospect's initiative is the best proposal before the people of Australia today and deserves support so that it can be debated in this House. I welcome the fact that the initiative was taken to ensure that it was debated and that the member for La Trobe—notwithstanding his later remarks which were very negative—did address and recognise the seriousness of the issue in his opening state ment. I welcome that and I think that would probably reflect the views of the vast majority of members of this House. In speaking to this bill and in supporting the initiative by the member for Prospect to the government, what we are trying to say here today is: do not get involved in a great debate about who is to blame, do not get involved in a lot of rhetorical flourishes about this issue, do not just stand there; do something about this problem—thousands of Australians are depending upon you.We have the most alarming of double standards being applied whereby it is clear on the public record from the government that substantial amounts of money will be available from this government to assist on the waterfront to fund people who are not redundant but who are likely to be sacked by their employer. The government think it is a good thing that they should be sacked, so they provide money to fund that. But what do these people who have lost their jobs because their employer can no longer afford to keep them—the employer has gone into some form of insolvency or bankruptcy and ceased operations—hardworking Australians who have paid their taxes, get from their government? Nothing. You cannot feed your family on sympathy, and that is all these people have got. It is good that they have got sympathy, but it will not pay the bills, it will not pay the mortgage, it will not pay the rent, it will not feed the kids.What do we have today, just before this bill comes up? We have the government putting out a press release, from which the member for La Trobe loyally quoted, saying that this matter will be taken to the meeting of ministers responsible for industrial relations and labour matters on 1 May. I do not object to it being taken there, but I do object if it is as it appears—merely a ruse to avoid a concrete response.To the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—who has responded to me in this place and said that the government would give a response to the concerns of the workers from Cobar, Woodlawn, Grafton and others who met him—and to the government my statement is: do not just put this problem before that meeting; put your proposal before that meeting. Do not just turn up at the meeting and say, `Look at this difficult question.' It is the government's job to go to that meeting with a concrete proposal, recommend it to the state ministers, seek the cooperation of the state ministers and, if the state ministers do not cooperate, act in any event in so far as it is within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction to do so—and that is a long way.The Commonwealth could act on all the matters that are currently of notoriety because they all relate to corporations; each one of them relates to a problem of a constitutional corporation about which the Commonwealth can legislate. It may be that there are some unincorporated bodies about which Commonwealth legislation will not apply, in which case we should seek the cooperation of the states. But every one of the cases on the public record relates to a constitutional corporation and the Commonwealth can and should act about them.This bill deserves the serious consideration of this parliament. The member for Prospect deserves the gratitude of this parliament for taking the initiative that nobody else would take. It should be the catalyst for concrete government action so that the problems confronted by the 3,000 workers, who have been publicly identified as losing $20 million of their entitlement, can never happen again. The government should take up this bill, improve it if it wishes and bring back its version. It will have our support for expedited handling of it through the parliament. Let us take it off the political agenda and say: this is a problem that we as Australians cannot allow to continue. We were sent here by people who are losing their rights and who expect us to act in their interests and on their behalf. The member for Prospect has given us the chance to do so with her bill. I congratulate her for so doing.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business2546254616:21:002546Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I 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.RH4KERRMr Kerr—No-one to second it. What a shame.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The parliamentary secretary can second the motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It does not need seconding yet; it can be seconded when you conclude your statement.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My seconder has arrived. The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham)—the Labor Party's man in the iron mask—knows that there is something rotten with the tax system. In his book Civilising Global Capital: New Thinking For the Australian Labor Party the member for Werriwa refers to the narrowness of the current indirect tax base, which does not cover services, and refers to the advantages of taxing consumption over income. At least he has demonstrated that he is prepared to abandon the failed policies which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, oversaw when Minister for Finance and which he wants Australia to return to.It is not news to Australians that our taxation system is obsolete and in a shambles. The Labor Party have known it too. Treasurer Keating knew it at the taxation summit in 1985 when he supported a 12½ per cent consumption tax. The Labor Party cannot and will not deal with the realities of the tax system because it requires too much discipline and too many tough decisions need to be made. Already the Leader of the Opposition and his team of tired hacks have advocated a return to failed tax policies of old—for example, a re-run of R&D syndicates.The members for Hotham (Mr Crean) and Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the member for Holt, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans)—the dinosaurs of the front bench and the back bench on the other side of the House—have learnt nothing from the massive rejection that they suffered in the 1996 federal election. The Labor Party steadfastly maintains that, despite 13 years of minor tinkering with the tax system, they have suddenly found the answer—a wealth tax that will penalise two-income families but will fail to capture the true wealthy whose lawyers can find legitimate loopholes in the 3,300 pages of taxation legislation in order to minimise their clients' tax responsibilities.In 1985, the Hawke-Keating government held the gimmicky taxation summit. The then Treasurer, Mr Keating, knew that a broadly based taxation system was essential if Australia was to remain internationally competitive. Despite cosmetic reforms to keep the average taxpayer's head just above water, the Labor government could never summon the strength or party unity to bring fairness to the taxation system. Rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard yards, the former Labor government chose to ignore the problem and rack up national debt until disaster struck—it would have struck again had it not been for the repairs that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has made to the Australian economy in the lead-up to the Asian financial crisis. How can the Labor Party support a taxation system in which private jets are tax free but the family car is slugged with a 22 per cent tax?RH4KERRMr Kerr—What about the health system?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Rather than address the fundamental flaws in the taxation system, the Labor Party initiated their own unique brand of fiscal practice. The member for Denison (Mr Kerr) is now finding form on taxation reform. For the entire time he was in government, along with his colleagues, he did nothing for 13 years to reform the tax system, except following the 1993 federal election, when they reversed their l-a-w tax cuts and then put wholesale sales tax up by two per cent across the board. That was the member for Denison's contribution to tax reform in Australia.The Labor Party initiated their own brand of fiscal justice during their term in office: do not repair the taxation system, just run up $70 billion worth of debt in five years. Now with an election due within the next 12 months, the Labor Party has already shamelessly made unfunded promises of $8 billion to the Australian public in health alone. Where is this money going to come from? Who will have to pay more tax? The Labor Party has taken irresponsibility to new levels.Mr Albanese interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—You tell us where the money is coming from. You tell us where the $8 billion you have promised to spend on the health area alone is coming from. I look forward to the member for Grayndler's opportunity to tell us where the money is coming from if, sadly, he achieves government again, which I am sure the Australian taxpayers would not be so foolish as to repeat.In the last five years of the Labor government, Australians watched our national debt snowball—$70 billion for five years; $16 billion a year. If they had been allowed to stay in government, where would that have left us today? What would our inflation rate be? What would our interest rate be? The average Australian would have their backs to the wall with poor purchasing power for their money and crippling loan repayments because of unmanageable high interest rates. We need to have a disciplined approach to the budget position. Labor believes you can enter into unfunded promises and run up deficit and debt. This is pursuing a policy of higher interest rates and higher inflation and running the economy into a brick wall that costs Australians their jobs.The Labor Party ratcheted up interest rates to 17 per cent in 1989-90, and unemployment was forced to over 11 per cent. We now have got unemployment back to where it was before these crippling interest rates. Australia has among the highest rates of growth in the OECD; it has the lowest inflation since 1963; interest rates are the lowest they have been in 25 years; there is a movement into budget surplus; labour productivity is up; and we have a budget which, on current estimations, will halve the debt to GDP ratio in Australia. Labor only ever offered deceit, deficit and debt.The Asian financial crisis is significant not just as a demonstration of what the government has done to fireproof the economy but as an example of the opportunities lost while the Labor government was doing nothing to benefit the Australian economy from the stimulus that was coming from Asia for the previous decade. These 10 years should have been Australia's salad days, yet Labor created a recession we had to have and an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent.Who was the minister for employment? It was the Leader of the Opposition. As employment minister, he managed an 11.3 per cent unemployment rate. As finance minister, he oversaw $23 billion worth of deficit. During his tour de force of economic mismanagement, he looked straight into the television cameras before the 1996 election and promised the Australian people that the budget was not in deficit. In fact, it was $10 billion in deficit. For this the Labor Party made him the Leader of the Opposition.Gareth Evans, the Frank Spencer of shadow treasurers, has shown that as a shadow Treasurer he was a good foreign minister. In October 1996 he said on 3AW:I think that since we are so undertaxed by any relevant international standard, there is a case for having some overall revenue increases.Twenty-four hours later, he said:I did not say that there was a case for higher taxes or for increased taxes.When commenting on the ACOSS proposal that negative gearing should be abolished, the member for Holt replied:Well, that is certainly one option which could be contemplated.Then, by the afternoon—perhaps after one of his advisers had reminded him of Prime Minister Keating's disastrous experiment in abolishing negative gearing in 1986 and the damage it caused to the rental market—he changed his mind. So he released a statement saying:. . . we are not, however, proposing to embrace ACOSS's proposal to end negative gearing.On 17 August 1997, Gareth Evans said that he was in favour of states biting the bullet on inheritance taxes. As expected, he reversed his position within a fortnight. On 13 May 1997, he said that the services part of the economy was not pulling its weight. Within a fortnight he had changed his mind on a services tax. On 19 May, when discussing a broad based indirect tax, he said:If the business community and the welfare community can get together and come up with some proposal . . . then of course we'd have a look at any such proposal.Just two days later, he changed his mind. He said:Let me make it absolutely clear that . . . the GST is not on our agenda.On 17 August 1997, Gareth Evans told channel 9's Sunday program:Those who say that the tax system is broke are really being quite a bit absurdly breathless.At the National Press Club he said:Tax reform is a second or third order public policy economic priority.Obviously, the member for Werriwa does not agree with the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party. The member for Werriwa wrote in his book, Civilising Global Capital :Even without the spread of globalisation the tax system would be in need of constant repair and reform. Notwithstanding the pitfalls of tax reform in the electoral arena, this process now seems unavoidable in Australia. The effectiveness of the taxation regime, both in its adequacy and equity, has become a first order issue for social democracy.The shadow Treasurer is promising fast economic growth, tax cuts, the abolition of negative gearing and R&D syndicates for every Australian. His urgency for reform is appreciated by the government. (Time expired)MT4BROADBENTMr Broadbent—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:31:002549Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to speak against this motion on taxation reform today because it hides the government's real agenda: to introduce a goods and services tax, which would impact adversely on all Australians and their families—this from a government led by John Howard. This is the man who, as Treasurer, remained mute for five years between 1976-77 and 1982, and did nothing whilst the level of tax avoidance in this country got to epidemic proportions. Embarrassed by the Costigan royal commission into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the then Treasurer was forced to actually acknowledge that there was a problem, but previously he had denied there was a problem at all.When the McCabe-Lafranchi report on tax avoidance came down, Howard mocked it. In a speech to parliament in 1984, the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, estimated that the government had suffered between $250 million and $300 million a year in lost revenue from bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. What did Labor do about it? Labor, in government, fixed the problem. We held a tax summit in 1985. We introduced, as a result of that tax summit, imputation of dividends, a fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax; and we rejected a consumption tax. Total revenue from the fringe benefits tax during the period 1986-87 to 1997-98 was over $20 billion. Total revenue from the capital gains tax from 1987-88 to 1995-96 was over $7 billion. All up, those two Labor progressive taxation measures have raised over $35 billion in revenue—and they were rejected by the opposition at the time.The Liberal Party went out there and campaigned in favour of free lunch and in favour of capital gains rorts. To this day, they are still in favour of tax avoidance and evasion for the rich. Added to this was the fact that the Labor government was very efficient in cutting capital gains tax avoidance schemes. It is very hard to avoid paying this tax. It does not have the loopholes that the government continues to allow to operate with regard to trust accounts and taxation. If people made large capital gains, they simply paid capital gains tax. It is as simple as that.This follows on from Labor's tax achievements in the area of income. In November 1993 tax cuts worth $3 billion were introduced. This was the seventh round of personal tax cuts since Labor attained office in 1983. These cuts in personal tax rates were implemented in successive stages. When were personal taxes cut? On 1 November 1984 there was a tax cut; 1 December 1986, tax cut; 1 July 1987, tax cut; 1 July 1989, tax cut; 1 January 1990, tax cut; and 1 January 1991, tax cut; up until the seventh and final on 15 November 1993. With that, the corporate tax rate was lowered from 46 to 36 per cent.As I have said, exploitation of the tax system has been reduced by Labor's introduction of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. This 1993 income tax reform changed the tax rate on incomes between $20,700 to $38,000, a drop from 38 per cent to 34 per cent. On incomes of $38,000 to $50,000, it dropped from 46 to 43 per cent. Furthermore, a low income rebate of $150 was introduced for those on incomes below $20,700. Labor also dropped the lowest tax rate from 30 to 20 per cent, while raising the tax free threshold.Australia is a low taxing country compared with OECD averages. Tax revenue in 1992 represented approximately 28.5 per cent of GDP. The OECD average is 38.8 per cent. Tax revenue as a proportion of GDP has fallen quite steadily since the 1980s. If the same level of taxation were charged today as 10 years ago, there would be $15 billion extra each year in government receipts. However, the rich continue to avoid their fair share of the tax burden. That is why I am concerned about the member for Sturt's motion here today: it does not acknowledge that some of the richest people in Australia declare incomes of less than $20,000. As the Australian Financial Review revealed in February last year:Even the 1,074 Australians who declared an income of more than $1 million in 1994-95 paid an average of only 20.7% in income tax.When this is the situation, how can this mob opposite actually go on about the need for a GST? They need to look at the real problem with the tax system. The real problem with the tax system that they do not want to look at is the tax avoidance and evasion that occurs through the use of trusts. It is interesting that there are 17 members of the opposition frontbench who have trusts. Perhaps that is the member for Sturt's concern with the Labor agenda on tax reform.I want to pluck out an individual to use as an example of someone who has done a very good job of minimising his tax—that is, W.R. Parer. What better example could I find than Senator Parer? In the 1993 financial year there were dividends worth $210,372 in the W.R. Parer family trust. In the 1994 financial year dividends worth $192,000 were paid. In the 1995 financial year there were dividends of $243,000. In the 1996 financial year there were dividends worth $200,000 to $250,000. In or about August 1996, January 1997 and July 1997, minor shareholders in the Parer trust are alleged to have received dividends of between $100,000 and $150,000.Since 1993 the W.R. Parer family trust has received just over $1 million in dividends. This income was then split between the individual Parer family members. This is a very effective way of minimising tax. Tax is saved by directing dividends to family members who have no other income.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sat here silently while the member for Grayndler told outrageous furphies about the Labor Party's record in government to do with tax reform and tax cuts and left out the l-a-w tax cuts, which of course had been abolished by Labor after the 1993 election.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will come to his point of order.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—My point of order is that the member for Grayndler is imputing the motives of Senator Parer, who is a senator in another house, naturally. Under standing order 76 he is not able to do that. I would ask you to call him to order on that basis.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have been listening very carefully to what the honourable member said. He is within the standing orders so far, and I hope he will remain within the standing orders.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Of course I accept your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that those opposite are very sensitive when it comes to their rich mates. It is these sorts of tax evasion and avoidance schemes which cost the Australian nation billions of dollars over years in lost revenue, revenue that could be spent on education, health, transport and regional development. This government has ministers who say, `Oh, $200 million; I forgot all about that.' That is the sort of government that defends the setting up of family trusts. The fact is that working Australians in my electorate do not have family trusts. These are the same sort of people who go on about young women having children to get benefits.This is a mob who, with the GST agenda, will be rejected at the next election. We are quite happy to get into a debate about tax. We welcome the debate that has occurred today because at the next election we will be talking about their wealthy mates and how they evade tax, how we fixed it up with a capital gains tax, how we fixed it up with a fringe benefits tax, how John Howard opposed it each and every time and how, after the rejection in March 1993, he is coming back again with a GST across the board on food, clothing and essential items. Just as the GST was rejected in 1993, it will be rejected in 1998 by the Australian people. (Time expired)16:41:002550Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—I would firstly like to refute everything put forward by the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) that did not edify this House and did not edify the relationship between this House and the Senate. More than that, I question the member for Grayndler on the fact that he said he has raised $35 billion worth of new taxes. How did you end up $8 billion short when we came to power? How did you end up $8 billion short after you raised an extra $35 billion? Do not scurry out of the House. Stay and face what I have to stay to you, for heaven's sake. The tax cuts that you have talked about you threw away and then you clawed them back in 1993.Every leader of substance who has entered this House since 1985 has said, `We need to change the tax system. We need fairness. We need equity. We need to give the battlers a go.'9V5PYNEMr Pyne—What have they done?MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—What did they do? Keating gave up in the middle of a summit when Bill Kelty and a couple of others walked in and said, `This isn't on. We have spoken to Bob. You can't have what you want.' That was the leader who said that a new, changed tax system would be the saving grace for Australia and then in 1993 he said that it is the poison for Australia. Why? For base political reasons. It is not for the people who gather in this House and not for the people in my electorate of McMillan who are paying far too much PAYE tax not only on their normal income but on their overtime as well. If I get a complaint from anyone, it is, `I'm paying too much PAYE tax and it is not fair.' But obviously from what we have heard today, there is one great scare campaign left in this tax issue.I am here to talk about fairness, opportunity and rewarding people for their work. The Labor Party have obfuscated their responsibilities completely. They are the party of big spending, high debt, high tax and high interest rates. Remember when we had 22 per cent interest rates for small business? We had high unemployment rates of 11.2 per cent. These were the great achievements of the Labor Party of Australia. It is time that this House looked at our taxation system and said, `Let's come together and see if we can find a better outcome for the communities that we all serve.'I have had enough of people paying half their pay in tax. I have had enough of people paying so much of their overtime in tax and saying to me, `There's no incentive to work. We have to put some incentive back.' I am sick of Labor Party politicians standing up in this place and saying one thing when they truly believe another. They have been the party that have reduced the Public Service by 18 per cent, and then accuse us of bashing the Public Service—wrong; wrong party. They were doing it before the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton), the next member to speak, came into the House but while you were here, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins. Who has done all the privatisations in Australia?9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Labor.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—The Labor Party. The Labor Party have been the great party of the right.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—The dinosaurs.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—The dinosaurs of the right, but the party of the right. They wanted efficiency in every area but that which was politically dangerous, politically brave, politically courageous.What we are asking for is something reasonable. I support the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) on this motion. We are putting to the Australian people, `Let's have a discussion. Let's be reasonable about that discussion. Let's give everybody a fair go. Let's not go out there and just scare the pants off everybody we possibly can. Let's say, "Is there a benefit here for the Australian people?" If there is a benefit here for the Australian people, let's deliver it.' That is exactly what they are demanding of me; of you, Mr Deputy Speaker; of both the members at the table, the member for Fairfax (Mr Somlyay) and the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson); and of every member of this House. If we cannot deliver that, we are failing in our responsibilities to the people we serve. I do not want to be one of those people who fail in that responsibility.It is time to begin to deliver good governance. It is time to deliver a better tax system. It is time for the Australian people to take some pride in their politicians, rather than see the exhibition in this House today, particularly by the member for Grayndler. I am glad he came back into the room. Those arguments that he raised today—the politics of envy and the politics of greed—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—are all that he is on about.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—It is a great disappointment to me—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member's time has expired!MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—that we have people like that coming into this House—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for McMillan will resume his place!16:46:002552Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—It is wonderful how people can get carried away during debate. However, there was in that five-minute contribution from the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) a plaint, a plea, for this issue not to be debated, for the opposition to simply say, `Go ahead; introduce a GST, and we won't have anything to say about it.' I am sorry to inform the member for McMillan and the mover of this motion, the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne), that we will not be agreeing to that plea that he has put to us here today. We will not be doing so quite simply because this House is a place for debate. This House's central function is as the sorting house for interest groups, issues, difficulties and problems that the nation has. We will never give up our right to debate and to disagree with this coalition government.I had thought that the reason the member for Sturt put this motion up was to get some interjection practice. In fact I asked him whether that was the case. He indicated that he was bored. He may well be bored—Mr Pyne interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member should not encourage the honourable member for Sturt.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Sure; this is past history. If we look at what has been put together in this motion that I disagree with in every particular, what we see is effectively the current coalition parties' mantra in relation to the past practice of the Labor government, the past practice of their own and the current practice of this coalition government. It could in fact be subtitled `How to succeed in politics without really trying' because this is purely the current coalition mantra in relation to what they want out of a GST and to their arguments about what the previous Labor government stood for in the tax area. My colleague the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) pointed out that Labor brought in a range of taxes. I well remember the debate which took place in the tax summit in 1985. Labor in fact called it a tax summit. It was debated fully.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—What happened?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—The result of that tax summit was that option C, as a whole, could not go forward. The element of option C that was extra was a consumption tax. The consumption tax was quite simply knocked on the head. It was knocked on the head not only by the union movement but also because business did not support it fully, openly and totally. That tax summit, which covered the broad range of people within this community, did not agree with it. Only the consumption tax elements were knocked out. What did we go back to? We went back to options A and B, all of the key things that the member for Grayndler pointed out. The capital gains tax and the entertainments and fringe benefits legislation were introduced after the tax summit and after agreement at that tax summit that that range of matters should go ahead, but not the consumption tax. So we gave that the flick. The other matters have raised, as the member for Grayndler said, over time more than $35 billion worth of tax.Point 2 says that this motion `recognises that the former Labor government failed over 13 years to implement substantial tax reform'. The key elements of that tax reform have been enumerated again here today by the member for Grayndler. They were substantial, they were real, they were true, they were effective and they hurt the members of the coalition—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! It being 4.51 p.m., the time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Blaxland will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate2553Question proposed:That grievances be noted.255316:52:002553Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Today my grievance is against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his failure to provide leadership. You can trim the eyebrows; you can cap the teeth; you can cut the hair; you can put on different glasses; you can give him a ewe's milk facial, for all I care; but, to paraphrase a gritty Australian saying, `Same stuff, different bucket.' In the pantheon of chinless blue bloods and suburban accountants that makes up the Australian Liberal Party, this bloke is truly one out of the box. You have to go back to Billy McMahon to find a Prime Minister who even approaches this one for petulance, pettiness and sheer grinding inadequacy. I read the late Paul Hasluck's description of Billy McMahon, and I cannot find a thing that does not describe this Prime Minister equally well:I confess to a dislike of McMahon. The longer one is associated with him the deeper the contempt for him grows and I find it hard to allow him any merit. Disloyal, devious, dishonest, untrustworthy, petty, cowardly—all these adjectives have been weighed by me and I could not in truth modify or reduce any one of them in its application to him.In John Howard, here also is a man, small in every sense. Some have said that he is the worst Prime Minister since Billy McMahon. That is unfair to Billy McMahon. I am one of the few people who have opened up and read David Barnett's biography of John Howard. I have to admit I have not read it all, because it is impossible to stay awake. I did, however, get to page 17. Here Barnett outlines Howard taking six weeks off work to campaign for the McMahon government. Was Billy McMahon grateful? Barnett outlined:An appointment was arranged with McMahon in his office in Parliament House. Howard was ushered in, and Bill McMahon jumped to his feet. "No" he said. "I don't want to see him." Then McMahon, who also had an appointment with a Japanese delegation, stopped himself. "I thought you were Japanese" he explained.Barnett goes on to explain what John Howard's incredibly crucial and high-powered job was in the McMahon campaign: he was given the job of rolling the manual auto queue built into McMahon's podium. How appropriate. In this book Howard is quoted as saying of McMahon `he arrived in the job too old and too late'—this from a man who was born old and for whom time has stood still.But the gulf, Mr Deputy Speaker, between the man in his mind—the phlegmatic, proud old English bulldog—the Winston of John Winston Howard—and the nervous, jerky, whiny apparition that we all see on the box every night. When he looks on the box he gets to see what we see—not the masterful orator of his mind but the whingey kid in his sandpit. Spare a thought for us, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we have to watch this performance every day—the chin and top lip jutting out in `full duck mode'. We get this every day because this is a man in refuge from himself and from the rest of Australia.This prime ministership is not about the future of our nation. It is about John Winston Howard's past. We do not hear about the future of this nation when we listen to this Prime Minister. In every performance all we get are his life's grievances. All we get is the accumulated bitterness and bile of 13 long years in opposition and the people he blames for keeping him there.John Winston Howard grew up in the inner west of Sydney. His father owned a service station on the corner of the street where I now live. These were the halcyon days of little Winston's life—when the working classes knew their place and when all migrants were British. Lucky John Winston Howard moved further north, across the harbour; he certainly would not be comfortable living in the inner west of Sydney any more. A bit too much change for his lifetime.John Howard has always been proud to call himself a conservative. The problem I think is that he has confused this with preservative. He probably wishes good old Ming had dosed the country with formaldehyde when he had the chance. Because it all started going wrong in the late 1960s. Here is a man who lived at home until he was 32. You can imagine what he was like. Here were young Australians demonstrating against the Vietnam War, listening to the Doors, driving their tie-died kombi vans, and what was John Howard doing? He was at home with mum, wearing his shorts and long white socks, listening to Pat Boone albums and waiting for the Saturday night church dance.Yes, it all started to go wrong back in the 1960s. Radical and sinister notions of equality for women, world peace and, dare I say it, citizenship rights for indigenous Australians. So what do we hear when we listen to John Winston Howard today? We hear the hatred and resentment in his voice—the sort of hatred and resentment we saw at the reconciliation conference last year—hatred and resentment from a man who was never part of the scene, who was not accepted, for whom a different life was too big a leap and who took refuge in a previous generation. You can see it in his instinctive hatred of any progression, and he sees it everywhere—policies of social inclusion, multiculturalism, women's liberation, Aboriginal reconciliation. In all of them, he only ever sees the jump he was too weak to make decades ago. Now he wants the whole nation to stay back and keep him company.Try an interesting little exercise some day. Punch `Howard' and `multiculturalism' into the Hansard database. You will find he has never mentioned the word. When you punch in `Howard' and `multicultural' you do get it nine times but each and every time he is referring to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This is the man we have leading the country—a man who is so instinctively petty and so bitterly obsessed that he could craft an entire parliamentary career without mentioning the word `multicultural ism' and what that represents, because it is an idea he is opposed to. He is positively Orwellian in his pettiness. This is a smallness of mind, a meanness with breathtaking scope. I can just imagine his enormous pride at this aspect.It is a small thing, really, but remember when the Spice Girls came to Australia at the beginning of the year? Everyone said it was just the silly season that the Prime Minister's refusal to meet with them got so much press. Well, it was and it was not. What did he say? He said it would not be `appropriate' to meet with them. That is vintage John Winston Howard. If he really did not want to meet them, he could have just said he was on holiday at Hawks Nest—same place, same flat every year for decades—with the family, and that would have been fair enough. People would have respected that. But he could not resist. He could not resist telling the youth of Australia that he thought they were infantile and stupid and therefore it would be inappropriate to meet these people who, after all, are Tory supporters from Britain.We have a man leading this country who is prepared always to go out of his way to insult people he does not like, but not with the courage to come out and say it but do it sneakily. Weakly and sneakily. Weaseling around the point. Remember when he decided to give Jeff Kennett a blast? He does not do what anyone else would do—go into parliament or go outside and do a doorstop. He tells the coalition party room and then organises for one of his mates to leak it. No wonder Jeff thought it was so funny.This is the man we have leading this country—yesterday's man, a weak man, a little man, a man without courage and a man without vision. This is Billy McMahon in short pants. This is the man who has brought the full force of his personality to bear on Australia. Australia is now learning what it is like to live life through John Howard's eyes. This is the man whose only aim in the end—for getting the prime ministership—was to pay back all those who had tried to stop him along the way. Australia is a better country than that and Australians are better people than that. Australians are, if we are anything, courageous people.So steeped in conservative values and fear of what is new is John Winston Howard that, if he were born before the Wright brothers, he would have organised a campaign against air travel of any description on the grounds that it was new and potentially dangerous. He is an antique, a remnant of the past that should be put on display, but not in government and certainly not in a leadership position, for anachronisms belong in museums and historical texts, not in parliament. Australians deserve a courageous leader; they do not deserve the kind of leader that used to dob on them in the schoolyard. They do not deserve John Winston Howard and in time they will put him out to pasture. Roll on that day, come the federal election.255517:01:002555Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I am quite amazed at that speech. Talk about the 1930s. Amazing stuff! That was class warfare back in the 1930s. That was straight out of Paisley. I cannot believe we have heard about the British system being brought to Australia and that sort of stuff in the Australian parliament in this day and age in a speech by a former official of the Australian Labor Party who is steeped in mythology and, at the same time, claims to be an intellectual. I do not know of a single member of the Australian Labor Party who would endorse that point of view. There is not a single member. If the Australian Labor Party endorsed that point of view, you would have been on the front pages of the Sydney Morning Herald today saying what a crook statement that was from Gareth Evans, but there was not one peep out of you.Despite the wearing of your heart on your sleeve here in the parliament, there is no courage in you whatsoever. When it comes to your own people, you are quiet and you are compliant. You will toe the line no matter what the circumstances. If you had courage and commitment, you would have been out after Gareth Evans and the sorts of terrible things that he has been saying; but, no, you go quiet and compliant. If the Labor Party says it, you will agree with it.I want to raise today the situation of aged people in Australia and the difficulties that they have suffered under the Australian Labor Party and the process of reconciliation that is going on with the current Australian government. The care for older Australians in my electorate of Mitchell is something that many residents are aware of. Within the electorate of Mitchell we have that great establishment Mowll Village, which is part of the Anglican retirement villages complex, Aminya, which is a Baptist Homes Trust complex, and Wirreanda, which is a Uniting Church facility.The general care that the Australian government has given to older Australians was supplemented this year by the community aged care package, which allows older Australians to stay and be cared for in their own homes for longer. This innovation has been taken up very strongly throughout the western suburbs of Sydney. In fact, there were not enough packages to go around. The demand was so great from older Australians wishing to stay in their own home that the government's commitment of $800-odd million in the budget was not adequate to cover the requirements that these initiatives demanded.In the electorate of Mitchell, we have been really honoured by the settlement of migrants from all around the world, particularly Italian and Maltese migrants working in market gardens. These people have worked all their lives for their families. They have raised brilliant and wonderful Australian citizens. Many of their children have gone into the professions and are succeeding in those professions far in excess of general expectations. For some years I have been concerned about the future for these older migrants who were born outside Australia in non-English speaking countries. Many of them are slightly crippled or broken to some degree in a physical sense because of the hard work they have undertaken. However, they have wonderful and high spirits because they are happy in their homes and their community. They are a real inspiration to the rest of the community. They meet in day care centres, and the day care centres in the Baulkham Hills area are an important part of their lives. In the day care centres they can chat, play cards, enjoy Italian language newspapers and enjoy traditional dishes that are served by the ladies of the various parishes at their lunchtime get-togethers.The most appropriate care for these ageing Australians of Italian decent would be for them to have a community aged care package, but there just have not been enough to go around. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the decisions announced at the weekend. Many of these people are in their middle to late 70s and some in their 80s, but they want to stay in the home which has been their family home for many years. Their children look after them to the best of their ability. The care is of a very high quality, and family members are often in the homes of these aged Australians three and four times per week. Additional professional care is needed, yet it is not part of their cultural ethos to go into a nursing home or a hostel. So something else is needed. Something different, innovative and new is needed. That is why I feel that the community aged care package, an initiative of this federal government, is very exciting. It allows additional professional care of all types to be given to people who are advanced in years and it means that they can stay in a comfortable environment in which they feel at home.It is interesting, looking through some of the press releases of the various carer associations of Australia, to understand how well they received the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that Australians would have an additional $270 million in this area to assist older Australians. That $270 million over a three-year period is supporting many of the former initiatives but also is building on past policy decisions. Mrs Averil Fink, who has watched governments over many years, said that the government's $270 million package was a recognition that carers are the linchpin of the community care sector. The Conference for Older Australians held nationwide consultations for older Australians. Kay Patterson said:So far everything from the needs of carers to overcoming negative stereotypes formed by the general public and media to the recognition of the work of older volunteers have been raised.Those matters have been raised and have been dealt with most effectively in the package announced by the Prime Minister. Mr Correll from the Council on the Ageing said that over recent months the Council for the Ageing had been arguing strongly that the options for community care needed to be expanded.So there was a welcome from the aged community to the federal government's initiatives, which included community care packages, incontinence assistance, and carer respite, allowing breaks for those who care for disabled younger people. Some of the carers themselves are aged 70 or 80 years and the younger disabled they are looking after can be in their fifties. Those carers need a break; they need some sort of respite from the constant demands. Reform of domiciliary nursing care benefits was another in a total of seven initiatives.The regrettable thing is that last week, during the conference of carers here in Canberra, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), the opposition spokesman, spent the whole of her address attacking the government. She took the opportunity, which was supposed to be an opportunity for her to announce the policies of the opposition, to be completely negative in what she said. Not only that; she also said that the Labor Party would remove the bonds that the government has put in place and walked out of the conference without answering a single question. If she claims to have some professional knowledge in this area, and I believe she does claim to have some professional knowledge, she is going to have to be a lot more convincing before the carers of Australia. They were disappointed and upset. I have had calls from my electorate from people who attended that conference wanting something constructive and dynamic from the Labor Party. The Labor Party has got no ideas and no policy, and its spokesman on aged care behaves not like a professional but like a very poor quality politician. (Time expired)255717:11:002557Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today I stand in this House to grieve for state primary schools—the forgotten and sorely neglected part of our education system. It is interesting to note that whenever any of us start a new project we are very conscious of the need to prepare and organise so that, as we build upon the basic foundation, whatever we develop takes shape properly, effectively and systematically. The right foundation is crucial. Without it, whatever we undertake is prone to weakness somewhere down the track. It might not happen for years, but when it does the ramifications are costly and sometimes life-threatening.So it is with one of the most fundamental issues of a person's life: their first six years in the education system. Having six dedicated teachers and the right class size and being part of a school that has the full range of specialist teachers—full-time music, full-time librarian, full-time phys ed and full-time special ed—should be the norm. For each child, irrespective of what suburb they find themselves in, being able to access such a school should be the norm. Dream on!Rather than give our children their birthright—an adequately funded and properly resourced primary education—we are providing them with a second-rate system. It is second rate in that dedicated teachers in our primary classes are desperately trying to provide the children in their care with the best that they can scrounge from the limited resources available to them in their individual primary schools. Wander into any primary school library and see the tens of thousands of dollars worth of books, tapes, videos and assorted learning materials being hopelessly underutilised. You are lucky to find a librarian there more than two days a week. No more the opportunity to have each individual class, each individual child, experience the joy of being introduced to new books, new authors and new worlds of facts and fantasy. Teachers fume as they see the children in their care longing to experience the joys of books, in many cases not having the opportunity at home, where priorities dictate that the TV and video take precedence. Now children are being excluded by there not being the flexibility in the school's staffing quota to include that all-important full-time librarian. Compare and contrast with the private school down the road, with each child taking home their library bag each night at the request of the school librarian.Just try to find what was once the music room in your local state primary school. There gathering dust are the thousands of dollars worth of unused instruments, in most cases only accessed by children at special school events once or twice a year. Itinerant teachers visit and classes are lucky if they receive tuition four times a month.It is really depressing to know that in each class there are children whose musical talents are being almost totally ignored and, in most cases, permanently retarded. Compare and contrast that with the private school down the road, with early talent recognition and extension, tuition in any number of instruments and a dedicated number of staff to assist the children to reach their full potential. There is the saying: `A healthy body and a healthy mind.'Remember back to when most of us attended the local primary school—the phys ed teacher diligently and skilfully assisting each one of us as we built up our skill levels at the various traditional sports; assisting us as we first experienced the intricacies of the vaulting horse. Those who had flair and obvious ability were encouraged to develop and extend their talents; those who were apprehensive and unsure were lovingly nursed through the fear and trepidation to at least master the basics of gymnastics.Phys ed teachers in primary schools are now part of the itinerant brigade, making fleeting contact with most primary classes and certainly selling the children in their care short. The lack of a gymnasium in most primary schools, time constraints and a lack of basic equipment have meant that primary children from kindergarten upwards are denied even a basic physical education program. The development of any particular sporting talent a child might possess is now in the hands of dedicated, but often unskilled, parents after school or on the weekends.Expecting a child who is experiencing basic learning difficulties to be adequately catered for in the local state primary school is the height of optimism now that specialised teachers are no longer part of the normal teaching complement. Anyone who has a child with gross learning difficulties—the so-called category children who are now being assimilated into the normal primary school classroom—and expects him or her to be adequately catered for is a fool.One of the principal reasons for my being in this place is the experience of the occasional visit of the departmental `experts' to my school. The job of these itinerant bean counters—who had no real interest in or understanding of education—was to advise the minister when and how he or she should allocate funding priorities, yet they had no concept of the importance of the educational foundation I have mentioned.What we have reaped is a world where the transition from primary to secondary education sees at least 14 out of every 100 children at risk. These children have been neglected by the system and, as they approach their late teens, we as a society are reaping the rewards of this neglect. Glance at any daily newspaper and we see mention of the increasing rate of youth suicide, youth substance abuse, young people caught up in violent street crime, child sexual abuse and dysfunctional families unable to cope. How much is all this costing our society and its taxpayers?I would urge honourable members, the next time they visit any of their primary schools, to go and talk to the grade 1 teacher and ask how she attempts to cope with her overcrowded class of 28-plus children, each with their individual wants and needs. I would urge each member of this House to stop being seduced by the university hierarchy which attempts to convince them of their need for millions more dollars. It is time to get back to basics, back to the local primary school and to get the foundation right!255817:19:002558Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—One of the more frequent reasons that constituents call my office is to query and question guidelines relating to social security entitlements. I rise this afternoon to raise the issue of what I believe to be an unintended and, quite frankly, undesirable consequence of recent legislative change.The specific point in question is the ability of people on a pension or benefit to access a special loan scheme that enables them to get a cash advance to overcome a sudden financial crisis. The scheme provides access to an interest free lump sum payment, which allows people to provide for their essential and basic needs while retaining their dignity within our society. Usually when people ask for this assistance they are experiencing severe financial difficulty.In my experience the loan is used to buy or replace necessary personal items, such as fridges, washing machines or beds, or to cover other unexpected expenses such as medical, optical or dental expenses. The great majority of case histories that have come through my doors are quite genuine. The people who tend to access the scheme are the most needy in our society, and the most frequent inquiries to my office are from sole female parents who are already under enormous financial pressure in meeting the day to day needs of their children.The scheme, which operated until the end of 1996, enabled eligible people to access a no interest loan of up to $1,000, which was then repaid through deductions from their pension or benefit. After the loan had been repaid, the recipient could automatically apply for another advance, if needed. However, the following changes were made to the scheme in the 1996-97 budget, with changes effective from 1 January 1997: the lump sum advances were limited to an amount of between $250 and $500; the recipient could access only one advance per year, regardless of the fact that the legislative procedures were in place to guarantee repayment; and access to the lump sum payment was available only if six per cent of a recipient's annual pension or benefit amounted to more than $250.I can understand the need not to burden people with loan repayments when their income is limited. The last thing people need is to be burdened with loan repayments month after month, with no respite. This could lead to a situation where individuals, whilst accepting their obligation to meet their loan repayments, could potentially be deprived of their capacity to meet their other essential fortnightly needs. Advice received from the department is that the advance scheme also imposed a far greater demand on departmental resources than expected, and changes were needed to lessen the administrative burden of the scheme and to hasten the recovery of the loans.The workings of this scheme really need to be revisited. There are many cases that keep coming into my office relating to the difficulties that this change is causing in my electorate. One good example is the gentleman who wrote to me seeking support to have the system changed so that he could finance some unexpected medical bills. He writes:As you can imagine being on the dole, trying to get a few extra things outside the normal bills of rent, food and power is not easy at all.I am desperate at this time, and hope that you may be able to assist me in getting a loan.I don't know where to go from here other than the loan. I can't understand why they have done this, as I am sure there are a lot more people in the same boat. If I had not paid back the loan or been late or something similar I could understand but I just can't. I did pay back the loan on time and in fact often made extra repayments.Another is from a single mum who has battled on her own for two years. She has a two-year-old daughter, she works part time and receives a single parent pension. This young lady is a battler and she is making every effort to get off her backside and work to provide the best possible environment for her two-year-old daughter to grow up in. She does not want to be dependent on handouts. This lady recently applied to Centrelink for a $500 loan to buy a refrigerator but was refused because she is not in receipt of a full pension. This single mum needed the money so that she could replace her ageing, broken refrigerator. The situation was desperate as perishables were being kept cool in an esky. I would suggest that I do not need to highlight the difficulties of living in the tropics without a refrigerator. How do you tell a two-year-old that she cannot have milk or other food products that can be kept only in that refrigerator?This particular example highlights why these loans are so important. I would suggest, in this case, that when people have no family support—and in Cairns, because of the itinerant nature of a large section of the population, many people have little or no family support—or do not feel comfortable turning to charity organisations the advance scheme provides a very good safety net. I am sure you would appreciate that for people on limited incomes their ability to accumulate savings is certainly all but a dream.I do know that there is not a bottomless pit of money out there that can be drawn on and that we have to set limits on the usage of public funds. I do applaud the majority of the responsible cost saving initiatives introduced by my government. However, I do believe that there has to be a degree of flexibility introduced into this scheme. Guidelines should be able to account for people's individual circumstances and thereby grant them access to a second loan within a 12-month period if it is deemed to be appropriate and of genuine need. This would ensure that the scheme did not get out of control and yet, at the same time, would provide a much needed safety net. Commonsense, I believe, must prevail.I take encouragement from comments by the minister, the Hon. Senator Newman, that she would consider future changes in light of ongoing experiences. I believe that it is time that we re-examine this legislation to accommodate the genuine needs of less fortunate people in our community. This scheme provides a useful source of emergency funds for families in our community. Let us not forget that it is often the children that this money helps. I urgently call on our government to act on these concerns and to make the necessary legislative changes.While I am on my feet I would like to briefly remark on the comments of the member for Franklin (Mr Quick) with regard to primary schools. It is very sad if that is in fact the case with public schools in Tasmania. I was quite disturbed by what he had to say. However, a lot of the primary schools that we have in my electorate are certainly not in that situation. In fact, we have some wonderful kids coming out of those schools and going on to public high schools. Schools like Whitfield and the new one at Kuranda have the most magnificent structures. In Kuranda in particular the outlook over the rainforest is just absolutely superb and certainly will go a long way to encouraging the kids to maximise their skills. Even in schools in Cooktown and on Thursday Island they turn out a great result. We are talking all public schools; we are not talking private schools. They do a great job. At times I am sure funding can be tight. I am also a product of a public school—Mareeba State School. I am certainly very familiar with a lot of the comments that the member made with regard to reflection, but I have to say that even my own children, who also went through the public school system, were not in any way disadvantaged by that. I would like to put in a plug, particularly for those in my area, for the great work that they do and the wonderful kids that they turn out into the public secondary schools. Those kids can compete with the best of them and the private schools are having to work very hard to be able to compete with our local public schools.256017:29:002560Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My grievance relates to the government's continuing poor performance on employment and training. But I also want to take up an issue raised by the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch)—and I note his being a product of the local schools in Mareeba. I only wish he had stood up for the community of Mareeba when his government, the Howard government, closed the CES as one of its first decisions to withdraw services in regional Australia.I also understand that many disadvantaged people live from week to week without any real savings. In that context, as the federal member for Batman, I understand the needs of pensioners, many of whom do not have savings and live from week to week. I wish the member for Leichhardt would make a similar speech about the need for this government to reverse its disastrously bad decision to withdraw reasonable dental services for the underprivileged people in my electorate, many of whom are pensioners or unemployed living from week to week. The truth of the matter is that dental services are a luxury when you live on a pension or on unemployment benefits. That is a problem that this government has to face up to, in the same way it has to face up to its deteriorating record on the issue of jobs.That takes me to John Howard's first two years as Prime Minister. Those first two years have shown that total jobs growth has been little more than one-third of that which occurred in the last two years of the former Labor government—and I note the member for Leichhardt scurrying from the House so as not to hear of the bad performance of the Howard government on the issue of jobs.The number of full-time jobs has grown by less than one quarter of the number created in the last two years of Labor. In these same two years the unemployment rate has barely fallen, whereas it had been falling rapidly under Labor. The youth unemployment rate has not improved at all, despite the Prime Minister's promise that his highest priority would be to reduce it. That promise was made in the last week of the election campaign in his speech to the National Press Club.People's lack of hope of finding jobs under John Howard shows up in the fall in the number of people participating in the search for work. Since the Prime Minister's election, the participation rate is down by more than half a percentage point—from 63.8 per cent to 63.2 per cent. I find it strange that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) does not like to answer questions about these facts in question time.That takes me to the reference made earlier today by the minister for employment about new figures released by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. As is the minister's habit, he was very selective in his use of these figures. He did not, for example, mention that these figures show that after two years of the Howard government `traditional trade based apprenticeship commencements appear to be at a four-year low'. The new figures show that the number of apprenticeships has in fact fallen by more than 5,000 since Labor's last full year in office. This is directly due to the Howard government's cuts in payment of incentives to employers who do the responsible thing and make a commitment to longer term training.Today's figures also show that, while their numbers are still rising—and this is the key point—the rate of growth in shorter term traineeships has also fallen off sharply. This is the truth of the matter: yes, the trend to increase the number of traineeships in Australia has continued to increase, but the real problem is the fall off in the growth of traineeships. On this point I make the following factual statement: the growth rate of traineeships has fallen from 146 per cent in 1995-96 to less than half this—just 61 per cent—in 1996-97. These are facts that the minister for employment does not like raised in this House.The falling rate of traineeship growth is due to the failure of this government to continue the cooperative efforts by the Labor government, business and unions, through Nettforce, to actively promote placement of people into training. This government has cut investment in skills training and dismantled successful cooperative efforts to improve young people's skills. Yet at the same time—and this is the crux of the problem—skill shortages continue to grow in key areas of the economy which are crying out for the development of our young people's talents.Madam Deputy Speaker, what is this government's answer to that problem? As you well know, it is to bring in skilled workers from overseas rather than train Australia's unemployed. That is the government's solution to growing skill shortages in Australia. The government is condemned—and so it ought to be—by the mums and dads of Australia who are worried about their young, worried about decent training and job opportunities.Why didn't the minister for employment tell us about his own department's new publication, which was also released today, showing growing skill shortages in the very trades where apprenticeship numbers are falling—numbers having fallen, for example, in the traditional apprenticeships by more than 5,000 since Labor's last year in office? I will tell you why: because the minister knows that this evidence highlights the policy failings of the Howard government, its short-sightedness and failure to plan for our kids' future. To my way of thinking, our kids' future is more important than bringing in skilled workers from overseas to take jobs that ought to be filled by Australians.The Howard government has acted to punish young people for unemployment by taking away their payments. But it has done nothing to construct pathways for them into quality jobs for the future. To make matters worse, the number of people out of work for more than one year shot up by nearly 60,000 in the 16 months following the Howard government's first cuts to Labor's jobs and training programs. This, I suggest, has added some $½ billion to budget outlays on unemployment benefits and has deprived the Australian economy on a long-term basis of the vital skills and energies of these potential workers.More and more Australians are also feeling less and less secure, less and less comfortable about keeping their jobs. That is because of the Howard government's lack of interest in managing the international forces of economic change to protect Australian workers. The government ignored the plight of the steelworkers in Newcastle, and it has cut programs designed to help them and other retrenched workers find new jobs and receive the income support to which they are entitled.Currently, the entire system of employment services is also in disarray, due to the government's determination to privatise the Commonwealth Employment Service and shut down experienced community based agencies such as Skillshare. The new, greatly reduced arrangements for helping job seekers find and prepare for work have destroyed the 50-year tradition of a free universal public employment service in Australia.The new system of Dr Kemp and the Prime Minister means that only people on unemployment benefits can get real help to find work. This excludes hundreds of thousands of others who used to be helped under Labor, including women whose husbands or partners have jobs. The handing out of the $1.7 billion taken from the public and community employment service providers to the new, mostly private companies has been marked by incompetence and scandal—remember the Khadar Roude story—as has been the case with so much of the other public money handed out by Howard government ministers.The new arrangements for payments to private providers have been described by independent observers as `ripe for exploitation'. The only program which the Howard government has introduced to make up for the many programs which it has abolished is the work for the dole scheme, which makes a small proportion of the young unemployed do a couple of days work a week for a few months with no skills training to improve their future prospects of finding real jobs. I emphasise that—no skills training.The Howard government has also abandoned urban and regional centres with particularly high unemployment, such as the Northern Rivers of New South Wales and Wide Bay, closing down government offices and removing programs designed to help declining regions find new and positive futures. An energetic role for government in generating employment is what will distinguish Labor's approach from the Howard government, which has idly presided over a stagnation of economic jobs growth and, as a result, entrenched high unemployment in Australia.I go finally to the question of employment vacancies. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) referred last week to the ABS data. In the two years from February 1996-98—that is, since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was elected—job vacancies have risen 18 per cent. In the previous two years—1994-96—under Labor they rose by 40 per cent. They are the real facts, not the situation that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others would seek to present in a distorted way to this House.It is about training and jobs for Australia, not about relying on skilled migration at the expense of Australia's unemployed or relying on skilled migration at the expense of our young people. Mums and dads are concerned. They want an investment in training Australians, especially young unemployed Australians. (Time expired)256217:39:002562Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I had the opportunity and good fortune, like many of my colleagues will have had, to open a school extension two weeks ago in my electorate in the town of Warrnambool. This was an extension at the St Joseph's Parish Primary School. I was very taken, while I was doing this very pleasant duty, to note the St Joseph's vision and mission statement. When I was looking at this statement, I noticed around the border it had many of the values that not only the school aspires to teach the children but also most people in the community would see as the sorts of values that we would like to inculcate not only in the young of Australia but also right throughout Australia in all people.As I was reading those I thought, `What a contrast to some of the values that are being pushed towards everyone'—but the young in particular, and the most vulnerable people are the young—`whenever they turn on the television set or go to watch one of the modern movies.' When we look at some of those values—and they are written around the border; I could start anywhere—they are not only the sorts of values that the young can take up but also the sorts of values that will serve them very well throughout their lives.We see values like hope. I think everyone likes to have hope for the future. There is the value of faith. There is no doubt that many studies have shown that faith is a very powerful part of human development. There is the value of tolerance. The fact that we do have a tolerant society is something that all Australians are very proud of. It may not be as tolerant as we would like, but it is still a value we should aspire to. There are the values of service and consideration for others. I think they are all values that would help make for a better community.If we look at some of the others, there is the value of self worth—obviously something the school wants to develop. There is dignity—a value that all of us would like to see developed in the next generation. There is respect—something which is often taught amongst the younger generation but not so often practised amongst the older generation. There is trust—and I think all of us would like to believe that trust is still a very important value in life. There is joy—and I think that is self-evident. There is responsibility—obviously schools want to develop the understanding of responsibility.If we keep going there is reconciliation—a word that has a special meaning in today's political climate, but one that has a much wider application when we look at what it can mean throughout families, throughout communities and, indeed, between nations. Then there are other values like: love, peace, justice, compassion, cooperation, community, care, concern, support, forgiveness—all very important values. I commend the school for promoting and teaching them throughout the years that students are at that school, and no doubt other schools try to do the same thing in different ways.What a comparison that is to an article which was in yesterday's Sunday Age. It points out what an extraordinary contrast the young of this generation and recent generations of Australians and the recent generations in other countries are facing when you look at what their schools are trying to teach them, what their parents are trying to teach them and what they are picking up from what is recognised as one of the most powerful mediums the world has ever seen—that is, television.It is pointed out in this article that the term `television intoxication' was first used some years ago back in 1977 in a court case when a 15-year-old Florida boy shot and killed an 82-year-old neighbour—something that brings immediate memories of more recent events. This article was written by Professor Michael Carr-Gregg, a psychologist and head of the education and training unit of the Centre for Adolescent Health at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne—someone holding a very responsible and highly respected position in Melbourne. The article says:Although few psychologists would agree that excessive television viewing can exculpate a murderer, a huge body of evidence—including 3000 studies before 1971 alone—suggests a strong connection between television watching and aggression.I think this is quite frightening. It is not new, but it does reiterate something that I think many of us have been aware of but to date have had limited effect in trying to counter. It goes on to say:One of the first such studies, in 1956—that is 40 years ago—compared the behaviour of two groups of four-year-olds. One watched a Woody Woodpecker cartoon containing many acts of violence, the other group a non-violent cartoon, The Little Red Hen . The Woody watchers were more likely to hit other children, break toys and be generally destructive.This is not new; this was something that was done over 40 years ago. Following that, the article goes on to talk about some of the work that was done in America under President Johnson by his National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. It looks at some of the findings of what was to become the Cultural Indicators project, which it points out is:. . . the longest-running continuous media-research undertaking in the world.It goes on to say:The findings from the 30-year Cultural Indicators project are simply astonishing.These are the article's words: `simply astonishing.' The article goes on:According to the research, the average American couch potato is confronted with a veritable smorgasbord of violent behaviour. On average, there are more than five violent scenes in an hour of prime time, and five murders a night.These are staggering figures. The article continues:Most disturbingly, there are 25 violent acts an hour in Saturday morning cartoons—the programs most watched by children, usually without supervision.These are amazing statistics; an amazing reflection on what is happening in our community. It goes on to say:The Centre for Media and Public Affairs examined violence on free-to-air and cable channels and counted 2605 acts of violence on just one day, the majority occurring in the early morning when children were most likely to be watching.And we wonder why we have some problems in the community these days. It goes on:By the reckoning of the Cultural Indicators project, the average American child will have witnessed more than 8000 murders and 100,000 other violent acts on television by the time he or she leaves primary school.That is primary school; not secondary school. This is staggering stuff. The article goes on to talk about a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which found:. . . the typical American child spends 27 hours a week watching television and will witness 40,000 murders and 200,000 other violent acts by the age of 18.Of course, we know that Australian children are not that different from American children and a lot of the programming that we now get in Australia is American programming. It is quite clear that Australian children's lives have never before been so filled with full colour images of violence. Clearly, whatever way you measure it, the results are always the same. The article goes on to point out:The jury on the effects of TV violence has returned and the verdict is that young people so exposed can become immune to the horror of violence, may gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems, may imitate the violence they observe on television and in some instances may over-identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimisers.It all sounds so familiar; it all sounds so tragic. When we look at films like Terminator or Rambo , we can see the sort of role model that is developing amongst people—that real men are violent, real men kill their enemies and so on. Yet, what are we doing about it? Going back to the values from the St Joseph's school that I identified at the beginning, I think this really does show that we as a community are doing a very poor job in the way that we are approaching the education of the next generation—in their upbringing, in the way that we are, on the one hand, asking our schools to develop with parents the right values and, on the on the other hand, allowing television and other films to develop a totally different set of values. Is it any wonder that we have so many wanton acts of violence occurring in the community today? Is it any wonder that we are seeing some of the dreadful scenes of kids going out there with guns and so on? Is it any wonder that we as a community have to have a long hard look at ourselves and ask: what are we doing? (Time expired)256417:49:002564O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Last week, I had the opportunity in this place to make some comments about the policy issue of whether or not the rest of Telstra should be sold and the company totally privatised. In this grievance debate I would like to say some more about it, with a particular focus: that is, what I call the rural cross-subsidy and the direct consequences of the conflict of interest that arises when Telstra is wholly owned by private shareholders versus when it is majority owned by the government—as is now the case and as Labor is committed to maintaining.To develop this point, I should explain those two concepts. When Telstra is either wholly owned by the government or majority owned by the government it is bound to take direction from the government about a range of things, including where it invests, where it provides its services, what prices it can charge, what are its obligations to help develop industry, what are the relationships it has with the rest of the world—for instance, for international trunk calls—who should get the Internet, and what sort of technology should be made available in Australia. Telstra, as the major communications company in Australia—so much bigger and so much more dominant than anyone else—is the driver of all these decisions.When a government has the controlling interest it says, for instance, `I know with new technology you have now got too many staff and you may need to have less staff over time.' But, as happened under Labor, when Telstra proposed that old technology was no longer relevant and not as many people would be required for switchboards or whatever, there was a gradual phasing down of the number of jobs over a five-year period. What has now been proposed by the Telstra board is that 20,000 jobs be shed in two years. Many of those jobs are in country areas. Where a Labor government would say, `No, shedding 20,000 jobs just like that is not on; let's have a look at a plan that manages it for people in a much better way', that is not the message they now get. That is an example, and it goes right across the board.So, governments own or control these organisations for specific reasons. The conflict of interest I mentioned before relates to profits for the shareholder versus profits for the government. If Telstra is wholly owned by private shareholders then they have only one interest, and that is maximising the returns on their shareholdings—getting the best possible profit and dividends to them as shareholders.You hope that country people can have mobile phones that work as well, and cover as big an area, as those in the city. But there is a very simple equation. It costs a certain amount of money for Telstra to set up the towers, signals and infrastructure in the cities so that city people can pick up a mobile phone and have it work anywhere. There are literally millions of customers right around the corner who can hook straight onto that network and pay their monthly phone bill. Telstra makes very high profits out of those city users. But, if they go out into country areas and set up towers, where the same amount of area reaches only, say, 1,000 customers instead of 50,000 customers, Telstra runs that service at a loss.When you have private shareholders, the private shareholders say to the manager, `What are you doing investing good money out there when you are running at a loss? Those profits that you make in the city you should be returning to us as dividends on our investment.' If the government has ownership, or the majority ownership, of Telstra it can say, `Some of those profits made in the city must be used to pay for facilities that are developed in the less profitable areas in the country.' That is what the cross-subsidy is: the profits made in the city are used to provide services for people in the country.In 1986 the communications minister at the time, Mr Duffy, had this analysed, and the figure is quite dramatic. The Bureau of Transport Economics worked out that the value of that cross-subsidy was $500 million a year to provide for those rural services. But that was just for phones. We are now talking about untimed or timed local calls; we are talking about mobile phones; we are talking about the Internet; we are talking about a whole range of new technology. I would postulate that the 1986 figure of $500 million is at least $1 billion now. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is asking people to accept—that is, under his proposal those private shareholders who would totally own Telstra would be happy to see $1 billion of their profits being used to pay for unprofitable services every year in the country. That is just nonsense.I noticed an article about a National Party conference late last month at which the National Party demanded guarantees from the Prime Minister that, if Telstra was fully privatised, these rural communications services would be upgraded and protected. I thought to myself, `I wonder whether they even understand how much is involved here.' Guess what? Out came the figure from the Prime Minister's office of about $30 million. We are talking about $1 billion, not $30 million. Here is the catch that these rural politicians from the government side need to understand.I am very pleased to see in the chamber today the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) because I know he actually understands this. There is a very direct parallel between the sugar tariff and the guarantee on telecommunications services. People in areas such as the seats of Leichhardt, Capricornia, Dawson, Herbert, Page and Richmond, represented by members like Mr Entsch, Mr Marek, Mrs De-Anne Kelly, Mr Lindsay, Mr Causley, and Mr Anthony, all were promised unequivocally by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) that their sugar tariff would stay—no ifs, no buts. Then it was taken away. To his great credit, the member for Kennedy was the only one on that side who promised his constituents that he would vote to keep their sugar tariff and carried out his word in the chamber. The rest of them went missing in action. They did not stand up.I am saying that, when it comes to the crunch on Telstra, the promises on Telstra are worth about as much as were the promises on sugar. If these people cannot stand up to Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, and Peter Costello, the Treasurer, on the sugar tariff, where on earth do people think they are going to find the courage to stand up on Telstra? We have a very significant point to discuss in this parliament—that is, what are the guarantees that would be given to cover $1 billion a year of rural cross-subsidy, which will surely disappear, and how can they be guaranteed and delivered by people who could not even stand up on the sugar tariff?I draw the attention of the House to a lovely cartoon in the Courier-Mail. It starts off with a fellow phoning Telstra. This is what he is told:`Welcome! To the fully privatised Telstra . . . . . . If you're a shareholder press one and you will be attended to instantly . . . . . . If you're a big business user . . . press two and you will be answered shortly . . . . . . If you're a small business user press three and you will be answered eventually . . . . . . If you are just any old domestic user press four and you will be put on hold as this is a timed call . . . . . . And lastly if you're a remote area rural user . . . you are a drain on profits . . . Press 5 and you will be disconnected immediately . . . That is the fact of it. This rural cross-subsidy is going to become a huge election issue. I am signalling in the parliament now that talk about figures like $30 million takes us nowhere. (Time expired)256617:59:002566Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—The previous speaker, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), put up a fight about Telstra, which I think is a very good thing for the opposition to be doing. That is what oppositions are about. There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to have enormous difficulty—however good the government's intentions are and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—seeing those commitments being enforced. A mechanism for enforcing those community service obligations is vitally important to the people of outback Australia.I rose recently in this House to speak about population and to ask this House: is the government of Australia—when I say government, I mean that in a general sense; not only talking about the government of the present moment but the government in the future and the government in the past—serious about settling this continent? When Captain Cook arrived on this continent, there were about 300,000 people living here, but even now 90 per cent of the continent of Australia does not have many more than 300,000 people living in it.As fundamental, prerequisite services are removed from country areas, then the population must follow. A little town, Julia Creek, where I did a lot of my business in my days before going into parliament, is a town now bereft of a high school, bereft of a clerk of the court and bereft of its Catholic primary school; a town that has lost service after service. The neighbouring town of Cloncurry, a much bigger town, lost six separate services in the space of one year. Julia Creek now is facing the loss of its railway gang, which is very serious indeed.I was rung up from Julia Creek this week. The guns issue has already raised its ugly head. On that issue, the biggest industry west of the Great Dividing Range—outside the mining industry, which is rapidly ceasing to be an outback industry of Australia because of the fly-ins: it is now a city based industry; and miners do not live in these areas—is the kangaroo shooting industry, which is now a bigger employer than the wool industry. I cannot speak with authority about that for south-west Queensland but I certainly can for the central west, the north-west and the mid-west of North Queensland, and the Gulf country. That is a very sad reflection upon the economic rationalist policies of the last 10 years under the Labor government; and I regret to say some of those policies are continuing.Three shooters in the area recently had a visit from the police for reasons that we have never discovered. Three rifles were there with the bolts in them. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are a roo shooter, your rifle is your tool of trade; it is like having the keys in the car or like having the computer turned on if you are an accountant. This is their place of work. For these men to have lost their livelihood, and some of their families have been in the game for two or three generations, is very serious stuff indeed. The dislocations and the punishment upon the people of outback Australia are being felt right at this very moment.We have lost 38 per cent of our population from the central west. I nominate the shires of Longreach, Blackall, Barcaldine, Aramac, Muttaburra and Winton. In the mid-west area of North Queensland—that is, if you like, the north-west excluding Mount Isa—in the towns of Cloncurry, Julia Creek, Richmond and Hughenden, we have lost 42 per cent of our population. The population of Mount Isa, a mining town, has declined from about 30,000 to around 20,000. Every single western statistical division in the last census showed a population loss once again.We must ask the question: do we seriously want to stay in occupation of this continent? I repeat to the House: if you get on an aeroplane in Townsville and you fly across to Broome, you look out either side of that aeroplane and you will see no sign of human habitation, yet you have just flown over three-quarters of the nation's water resources and two-thirds of the nation's arable land, populated by 100,000 people; an area that could support a population, quite literally, of 100 million people, because that is where Australia's water supply is, that is where Australia's flat farmland is and that is where there are no Australians.If there is a commitment by the government of Australia to populate these areas, under present concepts I am sorry but I cannot see it. For the last 15 years, all we have seen is a roll back. You simply must act positively. You cannot simply glide along on a user-pays policy. There were magnificent achievements in the Menzies and McEwen era, where we saw the beef road schemes, dry strips of bitumen into every single nook and cranny throughout Australia. At one recent poll taken of what the most effective weapon was in Australia for fighting drought, what was nominated was not water schemes, not water conservation schemes, not financial assistance through taxation arrangements—none of those things—the beef road scheme was named.For those people who have long denigrated the Ord: on the last figures I saw, the Ord is now paying for itself every eight years. At its present rate of development it will be paying for itself every four years, just out of tax revenue. If you want to talk about the cost of building it in terms of today's money and the benefits flowing from that scheme, it is most certainly paying for itself every three or four years. But even allowing for just the narrow analysis of the tax benefit flowing to this government from the production out of that area, we are talking about that project paying for itself every eight years.A government is an institution, the same as a corporation. If someone comes along to a corporation and says, `I can show you a 300 per cent return on invested capital,' then you would be very foolish not to take up that offer, if in fact it is a true and serious offer.I come into this place and put before the House the issue of the Hells Gate dam scheme. Some ministers will be part of the Federation Fund. Some of them will be sitting in a room making a decision about where the money made from the sale of Telstra will go. If we are to take a very serious negative with the sale of Telstra, I would plead with the government to give in return a very important positive. The Hells Gate dam scheme will cost $405 million. The state government of Queensland has projected that the income that will be generated by that scheme will be $740 million a year. The figure projected by the North Queensland Economic Development Zone Board, which is jointly financed by this government, the last Labor government and the Queensland government, also quotes a figure of $740 million a year. So for an outlay of $405 million, the people of Australia will benefit to the extent of $740 million every single year forever.The honourable member for Page (Mr Causley) quotes a figure that the New England University claims is a five to one multiplier effect with irrigation projects. Not only do we derive that benefit but we also derive the benefit of the value saved to the Australian taxpayers by not having to pay the unemployed. During the Great Depression in the United States some 16 per cent of the population was unemployed. I dare say that the real unemployment figure today is much higher than the eight or nine per cent which is constantly quoted. Dr Kemp, the current Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, quoted a figure of 19 per cent, and I do not think he was very far out. During the Depression, America had an unemployment rate of 16 per cent and built the magnificent Tennessee Valley Authority projects which have yielded so much benefit for that nation forever. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills256802568Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 9), before section 51AD, insert:51ACA Definitions(1) In this Part: applicable industry code , in relation to a corporation that is a participant in an industry, means: (a) the prescribed provisions of any mandatory industry code relating to the industry; and (b) the prescribed provisions of any voluntary industry code that binds the corporation. consumer , in relation to an industry, means a person to whom goods or services are or may be supplied by participants in the industry. industry code means a code regulating the conduct of participants in an industry towards other participants in the industry or towards consumers in the industry. mandatory industry code means an industry code that is declared by regulations under section 51AE to be mandatory. voluntary industry code means an industry code that is declared by regulations under section 51AE to be voluntary.(2) For the purposes of this Part, a voluntary industry code binds a person who has agreed, as prescribed, to be bound by the code and who has not subsequently ceased, as prescribed, to be bound by it.(3) To avoid doubt, it is declared that: (a) franchising is an industry for the purposes of this Part; and (b) franchisors and franchisees are participants in the industry of franchising, whether or not they are also participants in another industry.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 13) to page 4 (line 3), omit subsections (2) and (3). (3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (lines 11 to 18), omit subsections (1) and (2), substitute:(1) A corporation must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with: (a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person (other than a listed public company); or (b) the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services from a person (other than a listed public company);engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable.(2) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with: (a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a corporation (other than a listed public company); or (b) the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services from a corporation (other than a listed public company);engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable.(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (after line 34), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) Without in any way limiting the matters to which the Court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a corporation or a person (the acquirer ) has contravened subsection (1) or (2) in connection with the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services from a person or corporation (the small business supplier ), the Court may have regard to: (a) the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the acquirer and the small business supplier; and (b) whether, as a result of conduct engaged in by the acquirer, the small business supplier was required to comply with conditions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the acquirer; and (c) whether the small business supplier was able to understand any documents relating to the acquisition or possible acquisition of the goods or services; and (d) whether any undue influence or pressure was exerted on, or any unfair tactics were used against, the small business supplier or a person acting on behalf of the small business supplier by the acquirer or a person acting on behalf of the acquirer in relation to the acquisition or possible acquisition of the goods or services; and (e) the amount for which, and the circumstances in which, the small business supplier could have supplied identical or equivalent goods or services to a person other than the acquirer; and (f) the extent to which the acquirer's conduct towards the small business supplier was consistent with the acquirer's conduct in similar transactions between the acquirer and other like small business suppliers; and (g) the requirements of any applicable industry code; and (h) the requirements of any other industry code, if the small business supplier acted on the reasonable belief that the acquirer would comply with that code; and (i) the extent to which the acquirer unreasonably failed to disclose to the small business supplier: (i) any intended conduct of the acquirer that might affect the interests of the small business supplier; and (ii) any risks to the small business supplier arising from the acquirer's intended conduct (being risks that the acquirer should have foreseen would not be apparent to the small business supplier); and (j) the extent to which the acquirer was willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of any contract for the acquisition of the goods and services with the small business supplier; and (k) the extent to which the acquirer and the small business supplier acted in good faith.(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (line 35) to page 8 (line 3), omit subsection (4), substitute:(4) A person is not to be taken for the purposes of this section to engage in unconscionable conduct in connection with: (a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to another person; or (b) the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services from another person; by reason only that the first-mentioned person institutes legal proceedings in relation to that supply, possible supply, acquisition or possible acquisition or refers to arbitration a dispute or claim in relation to that supply, possible supply, acquisition or possible acquisition.(6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (lines 5 to 8), omit "in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person, or whether a person has contravened subsection (2) in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a corporation:", substitute "or whether a person has contravened subsection (2):".(7) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (after line 19), after subsection (6), insert:(6A) A reference in this section to the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services is a reference to the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services by a person whose acquisition or possible acquisition of the goods or services is or would be for the purpose of trade or commerce.(8) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (after line 23), after subsection (7), insert:(7A) A reference in this section to the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services does not include a reference to the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services at a price in excess of $1,000,000, or such higher amount as is prescribed.(9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (lines 24 to 31), omit subsection (8), substitute:(8) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (7A): (a) subject to paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e), the price for: (i) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person; or (ii) the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services by a person; is taken to be the amount paid or payable by the person for the goods or services; and (b) paragraph 4B(2)(c) applies as if references in that paragraph to the purchase of goods or services by a person were references to: (i) the supply of goods or services to a person pursuant to a purchase; or (ii) the acquisition of goods or services by a person by way of purchase; as the case requires; and (c) paragraph 4B(2)(d) applies as if: (i) the reference in that paragraph to a person acquiring goods or services otherwise than by way of purchase included a reference to a person being supplied with goods or services otherwise than pursuant to a purchase; and (ii) a reference in that paragraph to acquisition included a reference to supply; and (d) paragraph 4B(2)(e) applies as if references in that paragraph to the acquisition of goods or services by a person, or to the acquisition of services by a person, included references to the supply of goods or services to a person, or the supply of services, to a person, as the case may be; and (e) the price for the supply or possible supply, or the acquisition or possible acquisition, of services comprising or including a loan or loan facility is taken to include the capital value of the loan or loan facility.(10) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (lines 2 and 3), omit "section 51AD" (wherever occurring), substitute "Part IVB".18:11:002570Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.In moving that motion, I seek the concurrence of the House to the amendments which have been passed by the Senate to the package of measures contained in the government's Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Bill 1997 . The measures which have now returned to the House are the government amendments in the Senate.I am pleased to be able to say to the House that all the other amendments—namely, those moved by the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Independents—were in each and every case lost in the Senate. The government's amendments in each and every case were supported by the Senate. Today is an historic occasion in the federal parliament because by the end of today's business we will have seen through the parliament the historic reforms announced by the government in our New Deal: Fair Deal package last September.The new law in the Trade Practices Act will give to small business for the first time protection throughout Australia against unconscionable conduct by big business. It will also allow the introduction of legally recognised codes of conduct underpinned by the Trade Practices Act, including mandatory codes for small business franchisees in the retail and oil industries. It is a ground-breaking policy development for the benefit of small business. It is the light at the end of the unfair trading tunnel. It sends the strongest message ever from the federal parliament to the Australian business community that commercial relations between big and small businesses must be treated on a fair and reasonable basis.The purpose of these historic changes is to induce behavioural change in commercial practices so that small businesses do get a fair go and, where they are treated unfairly, they have available to them a means of redress. For the first time real teeth are being provided within Australian law, and to the ACCC, to benefit those small businesses who, because of their unequal bargaining power, are subject to exploitative business conduct.Small business has been calling for these sorts of reforms for years and years. It was not until the election of the Howard government that the cries of small business for a fair go were finally heard and responded to in a constructive way to the interests of small business. When the previous Labor administration were in office they had report after report. Barren year followed barren year of reports to provide some assistance recommended to them for the small business community, but year after year their cries fell on deaf ears within the Labor Party and small business failed to get the protection which they deserved.It has taken the commitment of the Howard government, with its strong bias towards the small business community, for these reforms to be achieved. Even the Labor Party admitted as much in the Senate. For example, Senator Schacht, who himself was a Labor small business minister, very kindly said that I had made myself a hero for pushing these reforms through. The Democrats said:Minister Peter Reith, to his credit, recognised the scope of the problems in small business and has brought forward this bill.I pay tribute to the parliamentary committee which we promised before the election and which delivered on these issues, chaired by the Liberal member for Bendigo, the Hon. Bruce Reid. It is amazing that, all the way through, the Labor Party, having done nothing for 13 years, were giving advice as to what should be done when they went into opposition. It is amazing that in the Senate they were proposing amendments which even the spokesperson for the Labor Party in the Senate recognised must have been open to some question, seeing that those amendments were being advanced and advocated by representatives of big business supposedly for the benefit of small business. Senator Schacht was remarkably open and frank in his own description of the amendments that the Labor Party were proposing. Thank heavens they did not get up. Thank heavens this government remained determined to the end to ensure a fair deal. (Time expired)18:16:002571Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—We on this side cannot share the enthusiasm of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) for the success that he has achieved in respect of getting this legislation through, for a number of reasons. I am sure during the course of our contribution this evening we will try to get that message across. First and foremost, I think it is important to recognise that the Reid committee, to which the minister referred, did hand down a report. That report made recommendations about a number of specific areas in respect of unfair trading. It made recommendations about unfairness, not unconscionability; unfairness in terms of trading relationships between small business people and others in a trading environment. The government's response was to take the unfairness element, throw it away and say, `That won't work. We're going to talk about unconscionability.' It was an issue that had been examined by this committee, which the minister now lauds, but was set aside as being unworkable.Secondly, of course, one of the major issues that were considered in this was the whole issue of retail tenancy law. Again the minister has set that completely aside; yet the committee, which, I repeat, he lauds in this place—and its chairman, Bruce Reid, the member for Bendigo, and all the other government members should hang their heads in shame on this one—made recommendations about retail tenancy laws. The government completely jumped on those recommendations and just put them to one side. The minister went along to a small business ministers meeting on 5 December last year. He spoke at length to a number of small business organisations and basically said to them, `You take what we're going to put up or we'll give you nothing.' As a consequence, of course, we get qualified support from many of these business organisations for what the government has done.The opposition has said, `Because of the way this debate has gone and because the government has succeeded in the Senate in getting its watered down version of the legislation in place, a watered down version of the Reid committee report, we support what the government is attempting to do here, although we do not believe it is strong enough.' If the minister thinks that I or indeed the Labor Party might have arrived late on the scene for this, it is a reflection of the fact that this committee that he lauds so mightily around this place brought down, I think in his own words, one of the best reports that we have seen in this place. This side of the House adopted it in full; the government did not. The government, in its legislative program, adopted parts of the report that was brought down in this place. Now it tries to turn around and say that it is responding to the committee's report. It is responding in part to a much weaker and a much watered down version.You have to laugh. I know the minister is known in some of his press releases for trying to perhaps lead people up the garden path; but, when he talks about the Labor Party delaying the legislation in the Senate or in this place or putting in place a watered down version, you really have to sit back and say, `What is this man talking about?' What we sought to do with our amendments was to simply put in place what the Reid committee had recommended.There was one other area, and that was of course the $1 million transaction issue. That was an issue that was raised by organisations that he talks about as the big end of town. This was an issue that was raised with small business organisations, by the Property Coun cil of Australia, with a whole range of people. The simple reason is that there are many small businesses that do not get to that threshold of $1 million. In fact they go right past it. They are not going to be caught in this legislation. They are not going to get the opportunity to take an unconscionable conduct case, because they are beyond that $1 million threshold. They are still small businesses and we were trying to bring them in, as were the Australian Democrats through the amendment proposed by Senator Murray. I want to speak a little bit more about that during consideration of these amendments this evening.But we are not going to be frightened off by what the government is attempting to do with this. We will continue to look at ways in which the small business community can get the benefit of the Reid committee report. We will look at ways to try to keep the government true, honest and correct in every detail of that committee report. Regrettably, we fell one short in the Senate the other evening. It certainly is going to be regretted in the small business community as they understand just what all of this legislation actually means to them. (Time expired)18:21:002572Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I think the sad thing about the—(Quorum formed) The sad thing is that, instead of congratulating the government on achieving these historic reforms, the Labor Party can only stand up and say how much better they would have done if they were in government. Given the fact they did nothing for 13 years, it is a rather hollow claim. Given that in the Senate they supported amendments which would have reduced these benefits to small business, it is a quite incredible claim for the shadow minister to make.The shadow minister caps it off by saying we should have also voted for the opposition's retail tenancy reforms in the Senate. The impact of those reforms would have been to give Australian small businesses not one but two sets of retail tenancy laws. Who would have been entangled in red tape by the setting up of a duplicative system of dual tenancy laws? No-one other than the small business community, who would pay such a heavy price. It was something Labor never proposed when in office. We can only marvel at their hypocrisy to be now proposing it in the Senate as these reforms go through.For Labor it is catch-up politics because for the first time this government has taken a lead on tenancy laws. We did bring together the state and territory ministers. We have an agreed set of principles. We have taken this debate further than ever contemplated when Labor was in office.The technical amendments that have gone through are sensible ones. They are consequential drafting amendments and other technical amendments which reflect the intent of the original legislation. This is an historic day for small business. This is a great moment for the small business community. As one leading representative of small business said, this is the best news for small business to come out of Canberra for over 20 years. I commend this bill to the House. It means that our legislative package is on track for 1 July, as promised, as delivered. This government is pro small business and proud of it. This is the best piece of legislation that the small business community has seen for decades. I commend it to the House.18:26:002573Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—A little earlier we talked about the retail tenancy element of this matter. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) just said that our amendment, if it had been passed, would have delivered two sets of retail tenancy laws. The simple fact is that the Reid committee report recommended there be one set at the national level, which is what we were talking about. We were saying that, if that had have been enacted, if the minister had have used his great silver tongue, his great powers of persuasion, on his state colleagues—WI4REITHMr Reith—That's right.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I am saying it nicely to you; I know how you operate. If the minister spoke to his colleagues at the state level in the same way he speaks to people in the business community, we may have seen what we recommended in our amendments in the Senate: one set of retail tenancy laws that covered retail tenants around Australia. It simply is what the issue is about. To see what small business think, I need go no further than the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, who put out a press release welcoming the passage of the fair trading legislation and saying it is great. But then they said:The area of unfair trading which most affects community pharmacies is around retail tenancy issues. In the Guild's view, there is still insufficient protection for small business from unfair and predatory practices by large landlords in the renegotiations of tenancy agreements.That is precisely the point that we were making: we wanted to have national laws in place to pick up that very point. As a consequence, we were concerned to see that the passage of the legislation did not include that.In relation to unconscionable conduct, which is the area the government settled on—it completely overturned the Reid committee's recommendations in terms of unfair conduct—we find that the Small Business Coalition said:Small business has now been given protection against unconscionable conduct which was highlighted in the Reid Report.Yes, it was highlighted—but it was not agreed to. The committee report rejected the idea of unconscionability in favour of unfair conduct, which is the point we have been trying to get across to the minister and, might I say, to the government members of the committee, including the chairman, who did all the investigatory work. For 12 months they went out there and listened to people in the small business community, and then they came in with a report which the government says was you-beaut and which the Labor Party adopted in full. The government then came along and said, `You beaut, but we're not going to do it. We're going to water it all down because we can't have uniform retail tenancy laws. We certainly can't have unfair conduct. No, we have to have unconscionable conduct.' They were not going to talk about the way in which some small businesses might be excluded from this. As a consequence, Peter Reith, in his usual style, turned around and said that the Labor Party is trying to water down what the Reid committee recommended. It is the other way around.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—He was right; he's always right.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Even the parliamentary secretary, who was with me when this whole issue was being debated out there in the broad community—he heard from retailers about what they wanted: tougher laws but not rammed down their throats by this minister saying in his usual style, `Take it or you'll get nothing'—cannot get away from the fact that this government response is watered down and weak. The Franchise Council of Australia has even said the unconscionable provisions are no good. At the end of the day even they have come out and said they are no good.I simply want to put on the record for once and forever that the Labor Party adopted fully the Reid committee report. We supported every one of those recommendations; the government did not. The government rejected most of those and brought in a watered down bill which has now been through both houses of parliament and to which we are now considering some minor technical amendments. I want people in the small business community to clearly understand that.Secondly, we on this side of the House did not trade with big business and say we will put in what they want. Rather, we talked to small businesses, small business organisations, retail organisations and landlord organisations—which is probably more than the minister did—because we wanted to get out there and find out what people wanted. As a consequence of that, we heard very clearly at rallies right around this country what small business wanted: the adoption of the Reid committee report.What would make you laugh, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that when many of these so-called organisations representing small business that were knocking on our doors when the Reid report came down, saying, `Adopt it in full. It's the only way to go,' did not get that, they went to water as well—very quietly, because Peter Reith went and visited them. We do not know what he said but we have an idea.Only Labor stood up for what the Reid committee report recommended. Only Labor was prepared to go with those amendments, and it was the government that thugged through these changes, these watered down amendments, that we are now considering in this place. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:002574Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Before the break we were talking about the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Bill 1997 moved by the government but more particularly about the whole issue of unfair trading. I want to reaffirm one or two other issues associated with some of the misinformation and blatant disinformation that has been put around by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in respect of the Labor Party's position on this.One of the furphies that has been peddled through the small business community is that in some way the amendments that we had proposed—that is, the amendments which were carefully considered to faithfully reflect the findings of the Reid committee report in respect of unfair trading and unfair business conduct—were a reflection of other factors. He said that we had delayed and that, by moving these amendments, we were in some way impeding the government's program. The fact of the matter is that that is not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that the legislation which emanated from the Reid committee report—the watered down government version of the Reid committee report—came into this place and was debated on 3 and 4 December last year and subsequently passed this House.When the legislation went to the Senate the Labor Party denied the minister in that place leave to table his second reading speech and said that he had to read it into Hansard. Peter Reith then ran around and said that in some way we were delaying the implementation and the passage of that legislation, and it simply was not the case. The government itself, at long last, scheduled it for consideration in the Senate only last week. In no way was the opposition impeding, holding up or trying to change substantially the legislation to make it weaker. That was not the case at all; in fact, we were trying to beef the legislation up.I again say to the minister that, in suggesting that because Labor found the cause of small business through the Reid committee report we should in some way be denigrated for it, we adopted that report in full; the government has not. The government has turned its back on the Reid committee. The chairman, the member for Bendigo (Mr Reid), and all the other Liberal-National Party members of this place who sat on that committee that brought down a unanimous report recommending unfair trading and recommending issues associated with retail tenancy legislation should all hang their heads in shame because they all supported what Peter Reith ultimately put up: a watered down, weak version of what had been recommended and put together after 12 months of extensive and intensive inquiry by that committee.We on this side just find it extraordinary that he should criticise us for wanting to ensure that, even though it was the Liberal-National Party government that was ultimately going to have responsibility for acting on it, the legislation that came through did give some real protection and some real power for small business. I say again to the minister that he may talk about the number of inquiries that were held by Labor when in government and claim that nothing was done, but that simply is not the case and he knows that that is a fact. The simple fact of the matter is that when Labor were in government they did act for small business in a number of specific areas. Unlike this minister who, along with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), promised that there would be a reduction of some 50 per cent in the paperwork burden which he cannot possibly deliver, unlike this Prime Minister who has been out in the community parading as the patron saint of small business and promising all sorts of things to them and who is going to impose on them a GST burden where one million people will be turned into the tax collectors for this government, the Labor Party are opposed to those measures.The legislation that has gone through this place and through the Senate is a watered down, weakened version of what Labor was prepared to support. It is unfortunate that Peter Reith and the cabinet were not prepared to back the member for Bendigo and his committee, which brought down an excellent report. I am sure some of my colleagues will comment further on this particular matter, but I would hope that, once and for all, I have laid to rest the nonsense that the minister has been peddling around the small business community that in some way the Labor Party either delayed or watered down this legislation. We did not under any circumstances do that. We were supporting small business for all the reasons that were outlined in the Reid committee report. It is unfortunate that Peter Reith was able to thug the small business community into accepting a much weaker version of the legislation which otherwise would have had bipartisan support. (Time expired)20:05:002575Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Far be it from me to be a killjoy at what is an orgy of self-congratulation on the part of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), but we all understand the way in which the minister for small business is positioning himself as a potential Prime Minister or at least as a potential leader of the Liberal Party by setting himself up as a friend of small business and contrasting himself with the Treasurer (Mr Costello). In that respect, he is onto something. The Treasurer is unashamedly a top end of town man and anyone who gets to have a look at where the Treasurer gets his advice from—and recently, having some responsibilities in the superannuation and business regulation area, I have had the opportunity to see some of the areas where the Treasurer gets his advice from—will see that he is unquestionably a top end of town man, so this does provide some potential room for the minister for small business to pose as a champion of small business. Regrettably, however, what we have finally before the parliament is less than satisfactory from the point of view of small business, and I want to go into that in a moment.However, there are a few things in debating that upset me. I understand that we on this side of the House will have different pers pectives from those on the other side of the House and that those different perspectives are often sincerely held and argued. For example, we think it would be better if Telstra were in public ownership; the government believes that it would be better if Telstra were in private ownership. The government believes that the taxation system would be better with a GST; we do not. We believe that it would have adverse effects on the community. These things can be argued legitimately, but it does annoy me when you see people on the other side of politics blatantly rewriting history and endeavouring to perpetrate falsehoods. Sadly, this area of fair trading and protection of retail tenants is one of those areas.If you listened to the contribution of the minister for small business before the break, you would get the impression that it was this government which had initiated retail tenancy reform. That is in fact not the case. If you go back to 1995, the former Labor government introduced legislation to deal with problems of unconscionable conduct. I recall quite well the former minister for small business, Chris Schacht, announcing those changes and introducing that legislation, as someone who had received a lot of representations from small businesses, from retail tenants, and who was anxious to see some justice for them, noting that the government had done the right thing and had introduced this legislation.The then opposition refused to pass it. They said, `No, we want to have a closer look at this.' Indeed, they said, `We are troubled by the idea of black letter law, so we will refer this off to a committee.' And that is what they did: they referred it off to the Reid committee. It is common ground, I think, amongst the parties that the work of the Reid committee was very good work, but it ought to be understood that in doing so the government failed when they were in opposition to support the legislation coming forward from the government. Equally, when we went into opposition Kim Beazley moved a private member's bill, the Trade Practices (Better Business Conduct) Bill, which would have addressed some of these concerns. The government did not move to implement that legislation, and I believe that it was most unfortunate that they failed to do that, for reasons that I will come to in a moment.Before doing that, I want to support what the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) has said about the deficiencies of the bill. In particular, I want to express concern about the fact that the government has not moved on the idea of a uniform retail tenancy code. That is something which they have handballed off to the states. All the indications from the states are that they are not going to address it properly, and therefore one of the most important reforms for retail tenants, one of the things that would give them genuine access to justice and genuine avenues for redress, a retail tenancy tribunal, simply will not be there. For the minister to come into the parliament, as he did earlier on, and say, `Oh, what is being proposed is too different jurisdictions, a national and a state jurisdiction, and two different sets of tribunals' is nonsense. That is not what the committee recommended and it is not the opposition's position.I think it is most unfortunate that the government has not moved to implement a uniform retail tenancy code and to establish a tribunal which would be able to give effect to that. What we have seen is a delay in bringing forward legislation, from the time that Labor moved on legislation in 1995 to the bill that is now before the House. (Extension of time granted) In the time that the government has not moved to bring this bill before the parliament and has been conducting this inquiry, there are a great many retail tenants who have suffered in the process and many people have gone out of business, have lost their life savings and, in the most extreme cases that have been brought to my attention, are now living in caravan parks and the like as a result. They are rightly concerned about the fact that there is nothing in this legislation which gives them any satisfaction or any compensation for the hardships that they have gone through. For example, I have received correspondence from Mrs Mary Caruana from the Ex Traders of Victoria saying:We feel very strongly that `New Deal Fair Deal' is not new or fair. The meaning of the `unconscion able law' that is in the Trade Practices Act 1974, 51AA, means `duty of care'.She goes on to say that the ex-traders have talked to politicians from both sides of the fence and that they have endeavoured to show that there has been a horrendous lack of duty of care, causing thousands of small business people, their homes, their families, their cash flow and their health to suffer, with more of this conduct still going on. She says:We know that you all know that too, and that `New Deal Fair Deal' does not come close to fixing the problems that we have proven. We would like to let Mr Peter Reith know that the laws that he has introduced are not good enough to take the great pressures, stresses and losses that all of this has caused.She raises the issue of compensation and security of tenure legislation.I know that she and others in that group are so concerned about it that they have put together a petition of several thousand signatures from people who are concerned at the plight of the ex-traders. There are, I think, two petitions floating around. One, which comes from traders and ex-traders, says:I want my voice to be heard. I call on the Federal Government to immediately implement the complete recommendations of the Fair Trading Inquiry, and to organise immediate compensation for ex-traders forced out of business through the misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct of landlords.I know that the House has heard many cases of retail tenants who have suffered, but once again I think we need to hear about these things to bring home to people what the real impact on the lives of ordinary people this issue has. At the bottom of this particular petition I have, this chap from Epping Plaza says:I'd like to inform you that I'm a well-educated person with qualifications in architecture and modern accounting who couldn't find a job. I hate to be unemployed, so I started my business, a gift shop. Now I work 65 hours a week to earn almost $150 a week. It is just unfair and unhuman; I feel like a slave working for somebody else who's taking all my profit. I've been in many European countries and haven't seen such a mess before.This is the kind of situation that people who are in retail tenancies are suffering, and they are saying that they want the complete recommendations of the fair trading inquiry implemented, and that is the position that we in the opposition, we in the Labor Party, have taken. We believe that the complete recommendations ought to be implemented and we are disappointed that the government has failed to do this.The other thing that ought to be said in relation to this debate is that there is a major role for the ACCC in acting on unconscionable conduct claims. I have been disappointed at what I have seen as a lack of action on their part in relation to this issue, but it is interesting to note that just recently they have instituted proceedings in the Federal Court in Perth concerning a particular shopping centre—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Farrington Fayre.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed, the member for Cunningham is correct. The ACCC alleges that in 1996 and early 1997 the owners implemented a strategy whereby they refused to grant renewals, variations or extensions of leases to three tenants unless those tenants withdrew from legal proceedings against the owners which were before the Western Australian Commercial Tenancy Tribunal, or agreed not to pursue legal rights against the owners. If that is the case, I think we would all agree that that is disgraceful conduct. The ACCC believes that those retail tenants were at a special disadvantage when bargaining with the owners because of their financial dependence upon renewal, variation or extension of their leases. (Extension of time granted) That is exactly right, and that is often the situation for retail tenants. Once you get into a shopping centre, and you have often paid a lot of money to get in there in the first place or have paid a lot of money to renovate and fit up the shop, you need to have your lease renewed. It is not a position of equal or comparable bargaining power. If you lose the lease—if it is not renewed or you are evicted—a great deal of your livelihood is lost in the process. So I am pleased to see that the ACCC is acting on unconscionable conduct issues, and I hope that in future we will see a lot more of that.To conclude, I support the remarks of the member for Cunningham. The opposition has played a very constructive role in this issue all the way along, trying to achieve justice for retail tenants; indeed, it drew to the attention of the parliament the conflict of interest problems surrounding the former minister for small business, the member for Forrest (Mr Prosser). I believe that if we had not done that, and if we had not secured his resignation, we would not have seen anything like that which we are seeing before the House today in terms of legislation to deal with this issue. Regrettably, when you examine the legislation closely there is somewhat less to it than meets the eye, and I believe that many of the concerns of retail tenants will continue into the future. But, in so far as the bill takes steps forward, they are welcomed by us and the legislation has our support.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2578r4512578Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) to define the powers and responsibilities of Agency Heads, the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner; and(2) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 22), after the definition of locally engaged employee , insert: merit , in relation to the engagement and promotion of employees, means assessment of the relative suitability of candidates for employment or promotion using a competitive selection process, where the assessment is: (a) based on the relationship between a candidate's work-related qualities and the work-related qualities identified by the Agency as required for the job; and (b) the sole consideration in a decision to engage or promote an employee.(3) Clause 8, page 6 (line 11), omit "This", substitute "Subject to subsection 20(1A), this". (4) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 28 and 29), omit "a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace;", substitute: its employees with: (i) a fair, flexible, safe, healthy and rewarding workplace free from harassment; and (ii) remuneration rates and conditions of employment commensurate with their responsibilities; and (iii) fair and consistent treatment, free of arbitrary or capricious administrative acts or decisions; and (iv) the right to be represented by unions; and (v) opportunities for appropriate training and development; and (vi) opportunities for appropriate participation in the decision-making processes of the Agency in which they are employed;(5) Clause 10, page 7 (line 31), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (l) the APS promotes equity in employment; (m) the APS provides a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment; (n) the APS is a career-based service to enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of Australia's democratic system of government; (o) the APS provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of APS employees.(6) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 1 to 12), omit subclause (2).(7) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) The Commissioner must issue directions in writing in relation to each of the APS Values for the purpose of: (a) ensuring that the APS incorporates and upholds the APS Values; and (b) determining where necessary the scope or application of the APS Values.(8) Clause 14, page 10 (line 9), at the end of the clause, add "and are subject to sanctions for breaches of the Code, to be determined by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Commissioner".(9) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 15 and 16), omit "include the following", substitute "are".(10) Clause 15, page 10 (line 21), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; (f) admonishment. (11) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 24 and 25), omit "The procedures must have due regard to procedural fairness.", substitute "The procedures must be based on minimum standards, determined by the Commissioner, and must have due regard to procedural fairness.".(12) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 7), after paragraph (a), insert:(aa) the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person authorised for the purposes of this section by the Merit Protection Commissioner; or(13) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) A breach of subsection (1) is to be treated as a breach of the Code of Conduct.(14) Clause 20, page 12 (after line 7), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) An Agency Head must not enter into an Australian Workplace Agreement, within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , with an APS employee.(1B) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement set out in subsection (1A), in relation to particular categories of APS employees. Note: For example, a particular category of APS employees could include "SES employees of the X Agency".(15) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:(5) Subject to this Act and to relevant awards and certified agreements, an Agency Head must engage a person as an APS employee on a permanent basis unless subsection (6) or (7) applies.(6) An Agency Head may engage a person as an APS employee on a fixed term of less than 6 months if, in the Agency Head's opinion, the need for temporary assistance will not adversely affect the maintenance of a career service or a stable workforce.(7) An Agency Head may engage a person as an APS employee on a fixed term of more than 6 months if, in the Agency Head's opinion, the employee is required to perform duties in relation to a project or task that has a fixed duration and: (a) the Agency Head determines that the duties require skills or ability that is not, or cannot be made, available within the Agency; or (b) in the case of a vacancy caused by a permanent officer being placed temporarily in another position or being on long term leave, there is no suitable permanent employee to fill the temporary vacancy.(16) Page 13 (after line 5), after clause 22, insert:22A Engagement and promotion based on merit The engagement or promotion of an APS employee for any period in excess of 3 months must be on the basis of merit.(17) Clause 23, page 13 (line 11), after "time to time", insert "but may not diminish any such provisions".(18) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 24 to 26), omit ". For this purpose, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .", substitute ", but may not diminish any such provisions.".(19) Clause 24, page 14 (lines 1 and 2), omit "because of special circumstances.", substitute ", provided any such determination does not diminish any provision of an award or certified agreement as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time.".(20) Clause 24, page 14 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:(5) For the purposes of this section, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .(21) Clause 25, page 14 (line 7), after "Agency,", insert "consistent with any provision in an award or certified agreement,".(22) Clause 25, page 14 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:(2) An employee may apply to the Agency Head to decline a proposed transfer within 7 days after the employee receives notice of the transfer. The transfer is not to take effect unless the Agency Head rejects the application.(23) Clause 29, page 15 (lines 2 to 5), omit subclause (1) and the note, substitute:(1) An Agency Head may at any time following due process, by notice in writing, terminate the employment of an APS employee in the Agency if, in the opinion of the Agency Head, termination is justified on any of the following grounds: (a) unsatisfactory work performance; (b) physical or mental incapacity; (c) loss of essential qualifications; (d) a serious breach of the Code of Conduct; (e) being excess to the requirements of the Agency. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to termination of employment.(24) Clause 29, page 15 (lines 8 and 9), omit subclause (3).(25) Clause 31, page 15 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) If an Agency Head, the Commissioner or the Merit Protection Commissioner receives any non-Commonwealth remuneration for performing duties pertaining to their offices, then the Agency Minister may give a notice in writing to the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner in relation to the whole, or a specified part, of the remuneration. (2B) The amount notified by the Agency Minister: (a) is taken to have been received by the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner, as the case may be, on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.(26) Clause 33, page 16 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) An application for review of an APS action (other than action which involves or has resulted in termination of employment) in respect of promotion to determine who is the most meritorious officer, redeployment, inefficiency or misconduct is to be determined by a Review Committee consisting of: (a) an independent convenor nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (b) a nominee of the relevant Agency Head; and (c) an employee representative nominated in accordance with the regulations or in accordance with the provisions of an award or a certified agreement. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to the termination of employment.(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c), the provisions of an award or certified agreement prevail over the provisions of the regulations to the extent of any inconsistency. (2C) A determination by a Review Committee is binding on the Agency Head.(2D) The Merit Protection Commissioner is to make recommendations to the relevant Agency Head in respect of an application for review of any APS action, other than an action included in subsection (2A), which has not been satisfactorily resolved at the Agency level.(27) Clause 36, page 17 (line 19), at the end of the clause, add ", including engagement, promotion, redeployment, mobility and termination".(28) Clause 38, page 18 (lines 3 to 5), omit the clause, substitute:38 Termination of employment In the case of termination of the employment of an SES employee, the Commissioner must certify that the termination meets the minimum requirements specified in a direction issued under section 36 and that the termination is in the best interests of the APS.(29)Clause 44, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:(4) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(30) Clause 46, page 23 (line 10), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(31) Clause 49, page 25 (lines 8 and 9), omit "and made available by the Public Service Commissioner".(32) Clause 49, page 25 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the purposes of this Act: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Merit Protection Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Merit Protection Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.(33) Clause 50, page 25 (lines 10 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:50 Merit Protection Commissioner's functions The Merit Protection Commissioner's functions are: (a) to facilitate and support the proper and efficient operation of Review Committees in accordance with subsection 33(2A); (b) to make recommendations to Agency Heads in respect of applications for review of APS actions in accordance with subsection 33(2D); (c) to consider and report to the Public Service Minister on any matter relating to APS employment (including such a matter referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner by the Public Service Minister); (d) to enquire into reports made to the Merit Protection Commissioner (or to a person authorised by the Merit Protection Commissioner) as mentioned in section 16; (e) any function prescribed by the regulations.(34) Clause 51, page 25 (lines 16 and 17), omit "Public Service Commissioner", substitute "Public Service Minister, for presentation to the Parliament,".(35) Clause 51, page 25 (lines 19 and 20), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(36) Page 25 (after line 20), after clause 51, insert:51A Capacity to report to the Prime Minister and Parliament Where action that is, in the opinion of the Merit Protection Commissioner, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances is not taken with respect to the matters and recommendations included in a report to an Agency or an investigation of a grievance, the Merit Protection Commissioner may in writing inform the Agency Minister, the Prime Minister, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(37) Clause 52, page 26 (line 6), after "Governor-General", insert "on a full-time basis and".(38) Clause 53, page 26 (line 11), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(39) Page 27 (after line 17), after clause 55, insert:Division 3—Miscellaneous55A Immunity from suit The Merit Protection Commissioner, a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A) or a person acting under the direction or authority of the Merit Protection Commissioner is not liable to an action, suit or proceeding for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith in exercise or purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by this Act.55B Protection from civil actions (1) Civil proceedings do not lie against a person in respect of loss, damage or injury of any kind suffered by another person by reason of: (a) the making of an application to the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act; or (b) the making of a statement to, or the furnishing of a document or information to, an officer for the purposes of this Act. (2) In subsection (1), officer means: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner; or (b) a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A); or (c) an employee of the Statutory Agency established under subsection 49(3); or (d) a person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (c), to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated any of his or her powers under section 78.55C Officers to observe secrecy (1) In this section, officer means: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner; or (b) a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A); or (c) an employee of the Statutory Agency established under subsection 49(3); or (d) a person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (c), to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated any of his or her powers under section 78. (2) Subject to this section, an officer shall not, directly or indirectly, and either while he or she is, or after he or she ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information acquired by the officer by reason of his or her being an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of section 33. Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months or both. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent an officer: (a) from making a record of, or divulging or communicating to any person, information acquired by the officer in the performance of his or her duties as an officer for purposes connected with the exercise of the powers and with the performance of the functions of the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act; or (b) from divulging or communicating information to a person: (i) if the information was furnished by an officer of an Agency or Commonwealth authority in the performance of his or her duties as such an employee—with the consent of the principal officer of the Agency or authority or of the responsible Minister; or (ii) if the information was furnished by a person otherwise than as set out in subparagraph (i)—with the consent of the person who furnished the information. (4) Subsection (2) does not prevent the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated powers or functions under section 78 from disclosing, in a report made under this Act, such matters as, in his or her opinion, ought to be disclosed in the course of setting out the grounds for the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. (5) A person who is or has been an officer is not competent and may not be required, in any proceedings before a court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or before a person authorised by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive or examine evidence or to disclose any information acquired by the person by reason of his or her being or having been an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of section 16 or 33. (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), nothing in this Act is to be taken to preclude the Merit Protection Commissioner from disclosing information, or making a statement, to any person or to the public or a section of the public with respect to the performance of a function of the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act if, in the opinion of the Merit Protection Commissioner, it is in the interests of any Agency, Commonwealth authority or person, or is otherwise in the public interest, so to disclose that information or to make that statement. (7) The Merit Protection Commissioner must not disclose information or make a statement under subsection (6) with respect to a particular review where the disclosure of that information, or the making of that statement, is likely to interfere with the carrying out of that review or of any other review. (8) The Merit Protection Commissioner must not, in disclosing information or making a statement under subsection (6) with respect to a particular review disclose the name of an applicant or any other matter that would enable an applicant to be identified unless it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.(40)Clause 57, page 28 (lines 13 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:57 Responsibilities of Secretaries (1) The Secretary of a Department, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for the general working, and all the business, of the Department and is to advise the Agency Minister in all matters relating to the Department. (2) The Secretary of a Department has a duty to assist the Agency Minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to the Parliament by providing full and accurate information to the Parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration.(41) Clause 59, page 29 (lines 16 and 17), omit subclause (4).(42) Clause 61, page 29 (line 26), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(43) Clause 63, page 30 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(44) Clause 65, page 32 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:(5) Executive agencies are accountable to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public in the same way as Departments.(45) Clause 66, page 32 (lines 22 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:66 Responsibilities of Heads of Executive Agencies(1) The Head of an Executive Agency, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for the general working, and all the business, of the Agency.(2) The Head of an Executive Agency has a duty to assist the Agency Minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to the Parliament by providing full and accurate information to the Parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration.(46) Clause 67, page 33 (line 2), omit "a relevant Secretary", substitute "the Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department".(47) Clause 67, page 33 (lines 5 to 10), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:(4) Before terminating the appointment of the Head of an Executive Agency, the Agency Minister must receive a report about the proposed termination from the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department.(48) Clause 68, page 33 (line 18), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(49) Clause 70, page 34 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(50) Clause 72, page 36 (lines 3 and 4), omit subclause (3), substitute:(3) Determinations under this section are to provide that the provisions of any relevant awards or certified agreements continue to apply to affected APS employees until new provisions are agreed to by those employees.(51) Clause 78, page 39 (after line 27), after subclause (5), insert:(5A) The Merit Protection Commissioner may, in writing, delegate to an APS employee any of the Merit Protection Commissioner's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section).(52) Clause 78, page 40 (after line 3), after subclause (6), insert:(6A) An Agency Head may not delegate a power or function under subsection (6) to a person who is not an APS employee or a person appointed to an office under a law of the Commonwealth, by the Governor-General or a Minister, unless the Commissioner approves in writing the proposed delegation. 20:19:002583Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The government has no alternative but to once again reject the Senate amendments to the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] .I remain deeply disappointed at the actions of the Senate. Significant legislative reform in this area is vital, yet the opposition and the minor parties in the Senate have introduced more than 50 amendments which, taken together, would return the Australian Public Service to the past, burying employment actions in layers of unnecessary prescription.The government expects, and the people of Australia expect, that the APS will be a modern and efficient employer. It is committed to ensuring that Australia has a public service which is competitive into the next century and which is amongst the world's best. It is important to Australia that its Public Service is world class. Countries compete internationally these days, not only in the marketplace but also on the quality of their public sectors. The OECD has noted that the quality and effectiveness of governance is crucial to national prosperity and wellbeing.The Public Service needs to be organised to provide governments with the best possible advice, it needs to be able to provide outstanding service to the general public and it needs excellent mechanisms of accountability to the government and to the parliament. To achieve these goals, the Australian Public Service must provide motivating and satisfying workplaces. In reaching these objectives, it is essential that we break away from the traditional approaches based on high levels of centralisation and prescription.The bill which the government introduced into the Senate provides an appropriate framework for our high performance Public Service. It is all about making the Public Service more efficient and effective and delivering better service to both the government and the public. It not only removes prescription and central control but enhances the accountability framework which the parliament and the community expect of the Public Service. It will enable the Public Service to meet market competition, to benchmark itself more effectively against other sectors, to bring employment arrangements into line with community standards and to promote a stronger performance culture.The amendments made by the Senate do nothing to assist the Public Service to move towards this goal of becoming a high performing organisation. They are unduly prescriptive, they contain excessive regulatory controls and they are, considering they come from a major party, irresponsible. They even abandon a number of reforms which the Labor Party introduced while in government. For example, they reintroduce appeal rights for senior officers, which were removed in 1987 by the former government.I have noted comments by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) in this chamber and in the Senate by Senator Faulkner which allege that the government has rejected the amendments made in the Senate out of hand, without giving them proper consideration. I would like to remind the opposition that amendments to legislation can be opposed for good reasons and that someone just might disagree with the approach they propose. In this instance, the government gave full consideration to the amendments made and concluded that they did not add value. They reintroduce or, indeed, exacerbate the very problems that our proposals for reform identified and sought to overcome. They would deny the opportunity to build a more efficient and effective Public Service to deliver services to the people of Australia.Let us again look at some of the amendments that the Senate has proposed and reasons that the government has for rejecting them. It is for good reason that the government has rejected the amendments that the Senate has proposed which prevent secretaries and agency heads from entering into an Australian workplace agreement with their employees unless the AWA covers a particular category of APS employees which has been exempted from this provision by a regulation under the Public Service Act. The government does not support these amendments because they attempt to override the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and place the Australian Public Service on a different footing to the private sector.The Labor Party has not accepted the fact that the parliament has passed the Workplace Relations Act and that the government is entitled to apply that legislation. It is still fighting the old battles on behalf of its union mates. If there is one thing you can be sure about it is that the Labor Party is a sectional party bound hand and foot to the union movement. It will introduce those amendments which the union movement wants. What we see in these amendments is the CPSU attempting to mark out its previous territory of control. (Extension of time granted)Other Senate amendments attempt to establish the primacy of awards and certified agreements over classification rules and determinations. The government does not accept the amendments because they are largely unnecessary or may be handled in other ways. To the extent that awards may cover matters contained in the classification rules, an award would override any rule that sought to diminish the provision in the award.The Senate has also sought to omit the provisions that determination of employment provisions will not apply to the termination of an SES employee, the secretary to a department or the head of an executive agency. The government does not accept these amendments because they treat these employees differently from their equivalents in other public sectors.Another major concern for the government are those Senate amendments which attempt to establish the Merit Protection Commissioner as an independent statutory agency, and retain and expand the current tripartite appeals process. The government does not accept these amendments because they impose binding decisions on agency heads and unduly constrain their employment powers. The amendments would also indirectly continue the costly focus on process within agencies.The government also has significant concerns with those Senate amendments which attempt to limit the powers of agency heads to engage persons as employees other than on a permanent basis and to transfer employees to other duties and locations. The government does not accept the amendments because they unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of agency heads to employ staff efficiently and economically to meet the needs of their agencies from time to time. There are also significant technical problems in relation to the application of the proposed provisions.Of a similarly limiting nature are those Senate amendments which place restrictions on the powers of agency heads to terminate employees. The government does not accept these amendments because they unnecessarily limit the exercise of termination powers and would contribute to the current emphasis on process. The amendments, although presumably they seek to be comprehensive, preclude termination for other necessary reasons such as abandonment of employment or failure to complete a training course. They would also result in confusion in relation to the interaction of the grounds specified in the bill with those in the Workplace Relations Act. The Workplace Relations Act already protects employees by prohibiting termination on a number of grounds and by setting out procedural requirements, as well as conciliation procedures and remedies.The examples that I have given clearly illustrate that the government has good reasons for rejecting the amendments made by the Senate. The common theme of these and the other amendments is that they add unnecessary and ambiguous detail to the bill and, through a culture of central control, seek to limit the ability of agency heads to manage their agencies efficiently and effectively for the benefit of their employees and of the Australian people.Throughout the development of these bills the government has shown a willingness to seek reasonable compromise and bipartisan support. Following many hours of negotiation with the unions we agreed to more than 30 changes to the original proposals. Amendments were made to the bill to take account of all the 20 unanimous recommendations of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The government has also accepted the suggestion of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in relation to the Merit Protection Commissioner. The government has shown that it is prepared to work towards a compromise piece of legislation that will provide a framework for the present government and alternative governments. The Labor Party has not been prepared to accept this process. It has persisted with its attempts to destroy the framework for a high performance organisation which is established by the bill.This legislation sets out the legislative requirements which would enable the Australian Public Service to develop its agencies as high performance organisations which motivate the members of those organisations and, most importantly of all, provide good government to the Australian people. The government's goal to achieve the Australian Public Service of the future is too important for it to be abandoned and the government has no choice but to reject the Senate amendments.20:28:002585McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Obviously the opposition does not agree with the motion and I will seek, as briefly as possible without traversing all the grounds that we have all covered in second reading speeches and which were dealt with in detail in the committee stage in the Senate, to set out why.It is always a cause for concern, and it must worry Australians when they look at the parliament, that it seems to be mandatory that in cases such as this everybody has to argue that absolutely all the virtue is on their side, that without doubt they are 100 per cent right and that there were clearly no possible grounds for agreement on anything anybody else might have said on the debate. We just had a really outstanding example of it from the minister, Dr Kemp. It was a rather sad litany, only exceeded by the overweening self-congratulation of the minister who dealt with the previous piece of legislation.There are some things about which everybody in this debate is agreed. You would not have understood it from what has just been heard, but there are, and they are important, and they are all going to be lost because the government will not accept any of these amendments.We are all agreed that reform of the Public Service and the Public Service Act is important. A large part of the government's proposed legislation has gone through the Senate unamended. The process of reform was initiated by the previous government and continued by this government. If we had won the election and the process had continued, the outcome would have been different, but that there would have been a Public Service bill proposing major reforms, including a large number of those which are agreed in this bill, is beyond doubt. So let us put that context, and then look at the amendments.It is true that I argued before on one or two occasions that the government rejected these amendments without consideration. Let us just put it like this: it could not find any one of the 50 amendments acceptable. It is not that the government said, `We only accept two and 48 are unacceptable,' or half and half. But none, not one; there is no acceptable amendment. Why? We all really know why. It is because the government is aggressively pursuing a series of alternative double dissolution triggers to cover the fact that it covets a double dissolution trigger on the Wik native title legislation which is now in the Senate. The government wants to ensure that, if it suits its political purpose to call that election, it has other grounds on which it can obfuscate and, to some extent, blur the fact that the election is being called around the Wik legislation so that the government can pursue what it sees as a partisan purpose in campaigning around that. So the government needs some other double dissolution triggers. Therefore, we get this intransigence in these matters and we find that, strange as it is, there are no acceptable amendments from the Senate.We, the opposition, the Labor Party, were attacked because some of the positions we are advocating here are, at least in the minister's eyes, different from those which we took in government. It is one of the ironies of life—and I guess in a democracy, if you lose an election, these things happen to you—that if we take the same position that we took when we were in government we are criticised because we do not change, but if we take different positions we are criticised because we have shifted from where we were before.Of course what this really means is that anything that the minister does not agree with is unacceptable—if argument A does not work, revert to argument B. This is not unique to this minister; he just does it slightly more often and is the most recent performer of this particular gyration.What the minister in his comments did make clear—and I welcome this—is the fact that the real purpose of many of the government's amendments and why it rejects many of our amendments is really about its views of the industrial relations arrangements in the Public Service, not about the broader principles of public service operation—not about those core values of an Australian Public Service that are legitimate matters of debate, many of which are shared between government and opposition. (Extension of time granted)We disagree about some of the ways to achieve those agreed purposes. But there are agreed purposes as to the apolitical nature of the Public Service—the obligation on government to deliver an efficient non-partisan public service that can serve governments of either political persuasion in our democracy. Those sorts of elements are shared. We argue about whether this particular way or that particular way is the best way to achieve that purpose, and that is fine. There would be something very strange if members of a House of Representatives, representing the diversity of opinions in our community, came in here and suddenly were struck by unanimity on all matters. That would make us an unrepresentative House by the very nature of the splendidly diverse democracy in which we live. But that would have been a legitimate debate and we would have had some disagreement and some of the amendments that are before us would lead to disagreement on those grounds and we may or may not be able to come to an agreed compromise position.But what we are having here is a secondary purpose which may in fact at its core be the primary purpose. The government's agenda here is to make fundamental changes to the nature of industrial relations in the Public Service rather than in its core functions and structure.We do have problems with the legislation, apart from some of the industrial relations matters with which we disagree, and the way in which they are being applied to the Public Service with which we disagree. I outlined at great length in the second reading speech that and our concerns about too closely tying together public sector and private sector industrial relations and other management approaches and missing the fundamental difference between the operation of the two sectors, and I quoted from a very important paper written by a former head of Public Service departments under the Fraser government and the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments, Dr Michael Keating, in an article in the Australian Quarterly. I will not reiterate those arguments because it will take too much time.But it is important that we appreciate that there are concerns shared not just by the opposition and a few senators. In fact, they would not have been passed if it were not for all the non-government senators sharing our concern, but these concerns are shared by a number of people outside this parliament as well.Some of the amendments that are being rejected have provisions making it very hard to see why the government finds them so unacceptable. There is the requirement that the Public Service should provide its employees with a fair, flexible, safe, healthy and rewarding workplace, free from harassment; that it should provide its employees with remuneration rates and conditions of employment commensurate with their responsibilities; and fair and consistent treatment, free of arbitrary or capricious administrative acts or decisions; the right to be represented by unions; opportunities for appropriate training and development; and opportunities for appropriate participation in the decision making processes of the agency in which they are employed.Those six provisions constitute one of the amendments—amendment No. 4, as a matter of fact. If we were dealing with a government that really was trying to find an agreed way of getting through a piece of Public Service reform legislation with which all in the parliament could live, it is hard to see that being an amendment which they would have found unacceptable. The sad fact we have here is that what could have been an agreed purpose and some very useful agreed changes will go out because the government will accept none of these amendments. We are having a double dissolution trigger because the government needs a double dissolution trigger rather than wanting as a priority Public Service reform. We will not walk away from the changes we have sought and which the Senate has made because we feel they are important to the nature of the political process and the democratic system in this country. We will persist in our support for the Senate's amendments. Question put: That the amendments be disagreed to.20:42:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly)80Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.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. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.39Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.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. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moylan, J. E. McLeay, L. B.Reid, N. B. Sawford, R. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Dr Kemp) agreed to: That the bill be laid aside. Bills2588r4502588Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 2), after subclause (2), insert:Merit Protection Commissioner(2A) At the commencing time, the person holding office as the Merit Protection Commissioner under the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 becomes the Merit Protection Commissioner under the new Act, as if he or she had been appointed as the Merit Protection Commissioner under the new Act for a period equal to the unexpired part of his or her term under the old Act.(2) Clauses 6 and 7, page 9 (line 21) to page 10 (line 23), omit the clauses, substitute:6 Rights of first- and second-tier persons First- and second-tier persons retain all the rights conferred on them by the old Act, except for rights to reassessment for reintegration or reappointment.(3) Clause 9, page 11 (lines 6 to 12), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A continued determination may be amended or revoked by the Agency Head in the same way as if it had actually been made under section 24 of the new Act, provided that no provision of the determination is diminished or revoked unless that provision is incorporated in an award or certified agreement.(3) Unless it is sooner revoked, a continued determination (including any amendments made by an Agency Head under section 24 of the new Act) ceases to be in force on the third anniversary of the commencing time.20:48:002588Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to. The Senate has moved three amendments to the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . These amendments are unacceptable to the government as they are unduly prescriptive and do nothing to assist the Public Service to move towards becoming a set of high performing organisations. We are not rejecting these amendments out of hand. Australia is now breaking away from the prescriptive, restrictive work and management practices that the Labor Party set in place and that the CPSU is currently urging the Labor Party to continue within the Public Service.The new Public Service Act will allow for the emergence of more creative ways for managing staff and the provision of services to the public. We will not allow it to be corrupted by inappropriate and backward looking amendments. The government has been willing to compromise: we made 30 changes to the original draft bill before it was introduced last year, we had 15 hours of consultation with the trade unions, we made amendments to meet all 20 recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and we also accepted the suggestion of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in relation to a Merit Protection Commissioner.This bill, together with the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , provides an ideal employment framework, free of complex and prescriptive provisions. It is therefore of concern that one of the amendments made by the opposition seeks to retain the outdated and inflexible mobility provisions of the current Public Service Act. Of course, if the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) had had his chance, there would have been a more rational set of amendments. But the dills sitting around him on the other side of the House simply could not recognise any of that.The opposition amendments also seek to have any dropped determinations included in an award or certified agreement and seek to extend the transitional period before existing determinations cease to have effect from 12 months to three years. This amendment is inappropriate. There is currently no requirement for provisions deleted from determina tions made under section 82D to be retained in any other form; they are management instruments which are tabled in parliament and are disallowable. The government does not accept this amendment because it is of the view that 12 months is an adequate transitional period. Additionally, the amendment would reduce the flexibility of agency heads and prevent them from rationalising existing determinations which have no relevance to the employees of their agencies.We are keen to remove the out of date and prescriptive determinations and provide the conditions necessary for establishing a high performing and world class Public Service. It is important to this country that its Public Service is world class. Countries compete these days internationally not only in the marketplace but also on the quality of their public sectors. The OECD has noted:. . . the quality and effectiveness of governance is crucial to national prosperity and well being.The opposition's amendments take us back to the old regulatory regime and are therefore rejected. The demand for less prescription, greater flexibility—which is vital for good governance—and effective delivery of quality service to the public cannot be ignored. This is all about good government. The Labor Party—a narrow, sectional party, tied to the trade unions—has introduced into the Senate those amendments which the CPSU, the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, have demanded that it introduce.We see in this piece of legislation, which has come back now from the Senate and which has been amended by the Senate, simply one more piece of evidence that the old union dinosaurs still dominate the Labor Party and that, however much some of the young and the restless may wish to change the fundamental character of their party, they are unable to do so. They are trapped, as the older members of the party are—the members of the party whose roots lie deep in the trade union movement and in the fact that the Labor Party is irremediably and relentlessly sectional. It has nothing to say about the good government of Australia. Therefore, the government rejects the amendments made in the Senate.20:53:002590McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—We heard a very tired, old litany of worn-out arguments there, didn't we? If it was not funny, it would have been sad. If it was not sad, it would have been funny. Choose your example. I simply say that, notwithstanding that the minister chose to waste five minutes of the House's time by reiterating the boring speech he made on the first bill, we will not be speaking further to any of these bills. The principal arguments relate to the primary bill, which we dealt with by division.The opposition supports the amendments moved by the Senate in regard to these three other matters. As I have said, the principles have been set down in the debate held around the place and the division concerning the principal Public Service Bill. We will not be dividing on any of these other bills, nor will we be seeking to reiterate the arguments that have already been put. They apply to the transitional provisions legislation and to the parliamentary legislation. We will not be speaking any further on it, but we will be pursuing the debate in public. If the government wants to continue the debate around these bills in the public or anywhere else, we will be very happy to take it on.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Dr Kemp) agreed to:That the bill be laid aside.Bills2590r4562590Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) to define the powers and responsibilities of Secretaries and the Parliamentary Service Commissioner; and(2) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 3), after the definition of insolvent under administration , insert: merit , in relation to the engagement and promotion of employees, means assessment of the relative suitability of candidates for employment or promotion using a competitive selection process, where the assessment is: (a) based on the relationship between a candidate's work-related qualities and the work-related qualities identified by the Department as required for the job; and (b) the sole consideration in a decision to engage or promote an employee.(3) Clause 8, page 6 (line 21), after "subsections", insert "21(1A),".(4) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 29 and 30), omit "a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace;", substitute: its employees with: (i) a fair, flexible, safe, healthy and rewarding workplace free from harassment; and (ii) remuneration rates and conditions of employment commensurate with their responsibilities; and (iii) fair and consistent treatment, free of arbitrary or capricious administrative acts or decisions; and (iv) the right to be represented by unions; and (v) opportunities for appropriate training and development; and (vi) opportunities for appropriate participation in the decision-making processes of the Department in which they are employed;(5) Clause 10, page 8 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (l) the Parliamentary Service promotes equity in employment; (m) the Parliamentary Service provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of Parliamentary Service employees.(6) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 5 to 16), omit subclause (2).(7) Clause 11, page 8 (line 19), omit "may", substitute "must".Note: The heading to clause 11 is replaced with the heading "Commissioner must give advice to Presiding Officers about Parliamentary Service Values ".(8) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The Presiding Officers must issue written determinations under section 70 in relation to each of the Parliamentary Service Values, having regard to any advice received from the Commissioner under subsection (1).(3) If a determination issued under subsection (2) is not in accordance with advice received from the Commissioner, the Presiding Officers must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report explaining why they have not accepted the Commissioner's advice.(9) Clause 14, page 10 (line 17), at the end of the clause, add "and are subject to sanctions for breaches of the Code, to be determined by the relevant Presiding Officer on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner".(10) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 23 and 24), omit "include the following", substitute "are".(11) Clause 15, page 10 (line 29), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; (f) admonishment.(12) Clause 15, page 11 (lines 3 and 4), omit "The procedures must have due regard to procedural fairness.", substitute "The procedures must be based on minimum standards, determined by the Presiding Officers, after consulting the Commissioner, and must have due regard to procedural fairness.".(13) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 15), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person authorised for the purposes of this section by the Merit Protection Commissioner; or(14) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(2) A breach of subsection (1) is to be treated as a breach of the Code of Conduct.(15) Clause 21, page 13 (after line 27), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) A Secretary must not enter into an Australian Workplace Agreement, within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , with a Parliamentary Service employee.(1B) The determinations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement set out in subsection (1A), in relation to particular categories of Parliamentary Service employees. Note: For example, a particular category of Parliamentary Service employees could include "SES employees of the X Department".(16) Clause 22, page 14 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Subject to this Act and to relevant awards and certified agreements, a Secretary must engage a person as a Parliamentary Service employee on a permanent basis unless subsection (6) or (7) applies.(6) A Secretary may engage a person as a Parliamentary Service employee on a fixed term of less than 6 months if, in the Secretary's opinion, the need for temporary assistance will not adversely affect the maintenance of a career service or a stable workforce.(7) A Secretary may engage a person as a Parliamentary Service employee on a fixed term of more than 6 months if, in the Secretary's opinion, the employee is required to perform duties in relation to a project or task that has a fixed duration and: (a) the Secretary determines that the duties require skills or ability that is not, or cannot be made, available within the Department; or (b) in the case of a vacancy caused by a permanent officer being placed temporarily in another position or being on long term leave, there is no suitable permanent employee to fill the temporary vacancy.(17) Page 14 (after line 20), after clause 22, insert:22A Engagement and promotion based on merit The engagement or promotion of a Parliamentary Service employee for any period in excess of 3 months must be on the basis of merit.(18) Clause 23, page 14 (line 27), after "time to time", insert "but may not diminish any such provisions".(19) Clause 24, page 15 (lines 12 to 14), omit ". For this purpose, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .", substitute ", but may not diminish any such provisions.".(20) Clause 24, page 15 (line 17), at the end of subclause (3), add ", provided any such determination does not diminish any provision of an award or certified agreement as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time".(21) Clause 24, page 15 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:(5) For the purposes of this section, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . (22) Clause 25, page 15 (line 22), after "Department,", insert "consistent with any provision in an award or certified agreement,".(23) Clause 25, page 15 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(2) An employee may apply to the Secretary to decline a proposed transfer within 7 days after the employee receives notice of the transfer. The transfer is not to take effect unless the Secretary rejects the application.(24) Page 16 (after line 19), after clause 26, insert:26A Compulsory moves between Parliamentary Departments and between the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service(1) The Commissioner may: (a) with the agreement of the Presiding Officers, move an excess Parliamentary Service employee to another Parliamentary Department; or (b) with the agreement of the Public Service Commissioner, move a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee to an APS Agency.(2) For the purposes of this section: (a) a Parliamentary Service employee is an excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Department; and (b) a Parliamentary Service employee is a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the employee was covered by the Public Service Act 1922 at the time immediately before this Act commenced and the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Service.(25) Clause 28, page 16 (lines 25 to 29), omit subclause (1) and the note, substitute:(1) A Secretary may at any time following due process, by notice in writing, terminate the employment of a Parliamentary Service employee in the Department if, in the opinion of the Secretary, termination is justified on any of the following grounds: (a) unsatisfactory work performance; (b) physical or mental incapacity; (c) loss of essential qualifications; (d) a serious breach of the Code of Conduct; (e) being excess to the requirements of the Department. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to termination of employment.(26) Clause 28, page 17 (lines 1 and 2), omit subclause (3).(27) Clause 30, page 17 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) If a Secretary or the Commissioner receives any non-Commonwealth remuneration for performing duties as a Secretary or the Commissioner, as the case may be, then the Presiding Officers may give a notice in writing to the Secretary or the Commissioner in relation to the whole, or a specified part, of the remuneration.(2B) The amount notified by the Presiding Officers: (a) is taken to have been received by the Secretary or the Commissioner on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Secretary or the Commissioner as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.(28) Clause 32, page 18 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) An application for review of a Parliamentary Service action (other than action which involves or has resulted in termination of employment) in respect of promotion to determine who is the most meritorious officer, redeployment, inefficiency or misconduct is to be determined by a Review Committee consisting of: (a) an independent convenor nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (b) a nominee of the relevant Secretary; and (c) an employee representative nominated in accordance with the determinations or in accordance with the provisions of an award or a certified agreement. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to the termination of employment.(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c), the provisions of an award or certified agreement prevail over the provisions of the determinations to the extent of any inconsistency.(2C) A determination by a Review Committee is binding on the relevant Secretary.(2D) The Merit Protection Commissioner is to make recommendations to the relevant Secretary in respect of an application for review of any Parliamentary Service action, other than an action included in subsection (2A), which has not been satisfactorily resolved by the Department.(29) Clause 35, page 19 (lines 18 to 20), omit the clause, substitute:35 Presiding Officers' determinations on SES matters(1) Following the receipt of advice from the Commissioner, the Presiding Officers must issue determinations in writing about employment matters relating to SES employees, including engagement, promotion, redeployment, mobility and termination.(2) If a determination issued under subsection (1) is not in accordance with advice received from the Commissioner, the Presiding Officers must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report explaining why they have not accepted the Commissioner's advice.(30) Clause 37, page 20 (lines 4 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:37 Termination of employment In the case of termination of the employment of an SES employee, the Commissioner must certify that the termination meets the minimum requirements specified in a determination issued under section 35 and that the termination is in the best interests of the Parliamentary Service.(31) Clause 47, page 25 (line 11), after "functions", insert ", powers and protections".(32) Clause 47, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:(2) Determinations referred to in subsection (1) are to adopt regulations made for the purposes of subsection 33(1) of the Public Service Act 1997 , with or without modifications.(33) Clause 48, page 25 (lines 16 and 17), omit "to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner".(34) Clause 48, page 25 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add "to the Presiding Officers for presentation to the Parliament".(35) Clause 48, page 25 (lines 19 and 20), omit subclause (2).(36) Clause 60, page 31 (lines 8 and 9), omit subclause (3).(37) Clause 62, page 32 (lines 15 and 16), omit "after receiving a report from the Commissioner", substitute "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(38) Clause 64, page 33 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(39) Clauses 76 and 77, page 43 (line 16) to page 44 (line 19), omit the clauses, substitute:76 Rights of first- and second-tier persons First- and second-tier persons retain all the rights conferred on them by the old Act, except for rights to reassessment for reintegration or reappointment.(40) Clause 78, page 44 (lines 24 to 29), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A continued determination may be amended or revoked by the Secretary in the same way as if it had actually been made under section 24, provided that no provision of the determination is diminished or revoked unless that provision is incorporated in an award or certified agreement.(3) Unless it is sooner revoked, a continued determination (including any amendments made by a Secretary under section 24) ceases to be in force on the third anniversary of the commencing time.20:56:002593Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , drafted under instruction from the Presiding Officers, adopts the general approach, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] with modifications to ensure the independence of the parliament from executive government. As a result, the amendments moved by the opposition in the Senate to a great extent replicate the amendments moved in relation to the Public Service Bill. The government rejects the detail of, and philosophy behind, the amendments moved in the Senate to the Parliamentary Service Bill by the sectional Labor Party as it has rejected the amendments to the Public Service Bill 1997.It is unacceptable that the opposition should once again thwart the establishment of a separate and independent parliamentary service. The amendments put forward in the Senate seek to bind the proposed parlia mentary service by rigidity, prescription and restriction. In short, the amendments bring nothing of benefit to the bill, and they bring nothing of benefit to the parliament. For these reasons, they will be opposed by the government.The government is determined to establish a Public Service that is competitive into the next century and among the world's best. The government is not going to be deterred from achieving this objective by the short-sighted obstruction of the opposition and the minor parties in the Senate. A corollary to this is our desire to support the creation of a parliamentary service which mirrors the best of the general Public Service and provides efficient and independent support to the parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Dr Kemp) agreed to:That the bill be laid aside.Bills2594r3952594Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—Schedule 2, page 4 (line 2) to page 5 (line 11), omit the schedule.20:59:002594Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The amendment removes schedule 2 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , relating to the 35-day rule for acute care benefits for nursing home type patients.20:59:002594Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will explain the reasons why the opposition is not surprised that the government is not seeking a double dissolution election on this piece of legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth), has moved that the amendments be agreed to, which is the signal that the government has now agreed not to proceed with this schedule. In my speech of 5 March on the second reading, I expressed some concerns about the impact that this schedule may have on a small number of patients in private hospitals. Basically, it affects people who are in need of nursing home care, but who, for whatever reason, are not able to gain immediate access into an aged care facility. As a result, people have to stay at home. In some cases an individual's health can be so frail that it is impossible for them to remain at home even with the best possible support from their family and friends.This problem arises on many occasions in country towns where it is inappropriate for people to remain at home due to the frailty of their health and there is no nursing home available in the country town because of the shortage of nursing beds. The only choice available to those with private health insurance is to remain in a private hospital until a nursing home bed becomes available.What this legislation would have done was result in quite large out-of-pocket expenses for people who had private health insurance, were in need of aged care accommodation and could not secure it. When you consider that the out-of-pocket expenses were to be up to $400 a day, if it took a person 10 days, for example—and that is being quite optimistic in some cases—before they were able to obtain a nursing home bed, you can imagine what people would feel if they had a bill of up to $4,000. These extra, out-of-pocket expenses could also, in some cases, be applied retrospectively, without people realising that they were going to be hit with this massive bill. For those reasons, we expressed in this House, during the second reading debate, our concerns about this schedule.At that time we tried to be constructive with the government. You can imagine our surprise when the government came to the opposition and said that they were willing to drop this schedule, on the condition that the opposition agreed not to have any debate whatsoever on this piece of legislation in the Senate. It is one thing for the government to seek and obtain our assurances that there would not be an attempt by the opposition to artificially delay this piece of legislation. We made it clear that if the government dropped this schedule there would be no divisions in the Senate.But the government came to the opposition and said, `You can have this piece of legislation only if you agree to have this essential piece of legislation dealing with a number of important health insurance matters not discussed in the Senate.' This government is once again displaying its timidity in not being prepared to have a full and open debate on private health insurance matters. That is what this is really all about: the government was terrified that there would be another debate in the Senate which would expose this government's $1.7 billion flop of its private health insurance tax rebate. It was afraid to have that debate in the Senate. On 24 March, the minister put out a press release making the following prediction:Mr Lee's office advised the government this morning that the ALP would force a debate on the bill in the Senate, delaying the legislation by at least two months.That was on 24 March. He said it was going to be delayed two months, and here we are today, two weeks later, and the legislation has passed the Senate, due to the cooperation of the opposition. And it is just one month since a speech on the second reading was given by the opposition in this House. That is almost a record: to have the second reading debate of a piece of legislation in this chamber and then have it passed by the Senate, with its amendments being accepted by the government, within a month. For the minister to have claimed that there was going to be a massive delay because the opposition was insisting on a debate in the Senate shows that in some way the government is afraid to have a debate in the Senate. It just goes to show once again how out of touch this government is and how concerned the Labor Party has been to ensure that people were not exposed to these massive out-of-pocket and at times retrospective bills. I am pleased the government has agreed to accept these amendments. (Time expired)21:04:002595Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—The government is disappointed that this small schedule of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 was defeated in the Senate, as it regarded it as a sensible reform, especially as the reform was accepted by the Council on the Ageing. So we are still not quite clear why it was opposed. However, it is important that this legislation has got through the parliament as promptly and efficiently as it has, because the main points of the bill allowing for one admission, one bill and informed financial consent remain intact. That is particularly important for the private sector.For the opposition to claim that the government is unhappy debating private health insurance as a component of the way health is administered in this country is really a furphy because it is regarded to be very important. As we have said from time to time, a viable private sector operating alongside a viable public sector has stood health consumers in this country in very good stead. It is appropriate that that remain the case. The provisions in this legislation for one bill, one admission and informed financial consent are important and the government now hopes that industry will take up the challenge widely, following the examples of Melbourne private hospital and Sportsmed in South Australia, to provide better customer service and better value for money for those who do have private health insurance.21:06:002595Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I would normally leave it at that but, given the minister verballed me on Adelaide radio about this piece of legislation, I ask her to answer one question: will the minister give the House an assurance on behalf of the government that it will not seek to re-introduce these amendments that would impose such large and, at times, retrospective bills on patients who might be staying in private hospitals in rural country towns because they cannot get immediate access to a nursing home?21:07:002595Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I am unaware when the minister and the shadow minister necessarily verballed—MG4LEEMr Lee—You verballed me on Adelaide radio.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I have not discussed this legislation on Adelaide radio. I think the only time I mentioned the shadow minister's name on Adelaide radio was to affirm—and it was in fact the truth—that he said he was having an argument with the minister at the time about something and therefore was not going to cooperate on another matter before the Senate.To my knowledge, this legislation was never discussed on Adelaide radio. I would have thought that those who might be listening at the moment would be sick of point scoring about verballing on Adelaide radio, or any other radio for that matter, given the fact that this is very important legislation. The shadow minister has said how quickly it is passing through the parliament. We can only welcome that because of the very important aspects in the legislation.21:08:002596Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The simple question is: will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth), on behalf of the Howard government, give us an assurance that the government will not seek to reintroduce this schedule of amendments which can impose such large out-of-pocket fees on patients in rural country hospitals who cannot get admission to nursing homes? I am talking about fees and out-of-pocket charges that at times can be retrospective. Can the parliamentary secretary give us an assurance that they will not be reintroduced?If the parliamentary secretary wants to get some advice from the officials, I will fill in for a few seconds, but I think we are entitled to an answer to the question. Is this government going to seek to reintroduce these measures that will impose such large and unfair out-of-pocket expenses on people who might be staying in country hospitals?Let me give the example again. The charges are $400 a day. There may be someone listening to this broadcast tonight who is living in a country town, where often there are long waiting lists for access to nursing homes. If people cannot be looked after in their home if their health becomes too frail, it is not uncommon for people to have short-term admission to a local rural private hospital while they try to find a nursing home bed.We have said that, if you clock up a bill of $400 a day, it does not take long to get a very large bill that could cause quite severe financial distress for many people in country towns, people that I am sure are known to the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor). We do not think it is unreasonable to seek an assurance from this government, having accepted the deletion of this schedule of measures in this piece of legislation. We would like to know, given that there is an election looming, whether or not this government is going to seek to have these measures reintroduced on some future occasion.Having seen one of the officials come back to the box, that should now give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to consult with the government's experts. We would like to know what the answer to the question might be, given that the parliamentary secretary has now had a chance to obtain expert advice.21:10:002596Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—It is not just a question of gaining expert advice. If I speak for the government, I speak for the minister, and I would like to have it confirmed by the minister's office that that is the case. My own inclination would have been to have said straightaway that that would be right, if the government had in fact been negotiating with the opposition in the Senate. I can now give that cast-iron guarantee that that is not the case, so there will not be any further amendment moved in the Senate in this respect.Elderly people wanting nursing home care, whether they be in the country or any other part of Australia, are perfectly entitled to that. I perhaps more than most others in this place would be aware of the situation that many country people requiring acute care do find themselves in. I remind the shadow minister that this was about a 35-day rule and not about anything less than that. I also remind the shadow minister of the very generous package announced just last week by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) which, of course, is very important to the 95 per cent of people who most fortunately do not require institutionalised care in their last years of life and as they are becoming older.Again, this was one component of this piece of legislation. The government is agreeing to the opposition's amendment. There were very many other important parts to this, particularly those that will help the private health sector. I am pleased to see it through the parliament.21:12:002597Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—There might have been some confusion. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth)if I have confused her with my question. Naturally, once the government accepts the Senate's amendments, it will not go back to the Senate. I was not seeking an assurance that there would be no further amendments in the Senate, because this is it.I was seeking an assurance that, in the unlikely event that the Howard government is re-elected, the government will not attempt to reintroduce these amendments. That was the assurance that I was seeking. Will we get an assurance tonight that this government will not seek to make these changes at some future occasion?21:13:002597Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I was not confused. I understood the question. I confirm again that the government has no intention of introducing similar legislation in the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2597r4092597Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 40 (after line 33), after subsection (2), insert:(2A) The Commissioner or the inspector must not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) to enter residential land or residential premises if the occupier of the land or premises has not consented to the entry.21:14:002597Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The amendment is designed to protect the rights and liberties of the individuals by restricting the search and entry power contained in the investigation enforcement provisions of the bill relating to the new security arrangements for Lloyds. I present the signed further explanatory memorandum.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2597The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) Bill 1998 Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) Bill 1998 Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998 National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998 National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998 Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1997 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 Bills2597r4822597Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time. 21:15:002598O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , which we are debating here today, represents a monumental act of betrayal of the national interest by the Liberal and National parties in this country. It is a betrayal of Australians who live in rural and regional areas, particularly in northern Australia, who over time will bear the economic and social burdens flowing from the sale of this great national asset.Let me put on the public record my disgust at the government's threat to guillotine this important debate which has restricted the time for me and other members of this side of the House to speak on the bill. This bill proposes the full sale of one of Australia's largest enterprises, yet the government seeks to curtail debate in this House on this matter. One wonders what the government is attempting to hide by this course of action. The government might attempt to muzzle debate in this House, but it will not be able to contain the anger of the Australian people, who know in their hearts that this weak Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who cannot even bring himself to conceding that Australia should have an Australian head of state, is proposing to sell Australia's most important public asset, all for a narrow political purpose.The full privatisation of Telstra is one of the biggest con jobs and deceitful acts yet pulled by this weak Prime Minister and his arrogant Treasurer (Mr Costello). It is a con job for a very simple reason. The citizens of Geelong and the rest of Australia already own Telstra. They are its shareholders—every one of them. What the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are proposing to do is to take those shares owned by the citizens of Geelong and the rest of Australia, sell them back to a chosen few investors who are lucky enough to have the cash to buy them, sell them to a few big institutional investors who have the accumulated funds to purchase them and sell them to foreigners, whom the government will allow to buy up to 35 per cent of this great Australian company. The crowning disgrace of this Prime Minister is that he will take from ordinary Australians the share they already own in Telstra and sell that share to foreign interests.But it is not just the shares they already own that he wants to sell. He wants to flog off to foreigners and to a limited number of Australian shareholders the $25 billion in future profits over the next 10 years that will go to general revenue to build schools and hospitals for Australians and to construct roads and bridges for people in rural and regional Australia. The sale of Telstra is an act of betrayal by a government that has no standards and which, with the resignation of seven ministers and its Speaker, and with multiple backbench defections, is literally falling apart at the seams.There are very powerful reasons why Telstra should be retained in public hands. It is one of Australia's largest enterprises and it occupies a strategic place in the economic and social affairs of this vast country. The company provides around 90 per cent of the nation's telecommunication services. In the new information age in the new millennium, Telstra will be a central agent in providing equitable access for all Australians to a range of social and economic opportunities that will underpin their standard of living and quality of life for decades to come. Access to information and the communications network will be a significant economic and social justice issue in coming years. It is my view that we can best guard against the emergence of an information rich and an information poor society by the retention of the national network in public hands, not hand it over to profit seekers to whom the social imperatives are not paramount in their operating commercial philosophy.Historically, Telstra has played a pivotal role in the industrial development of Australia's telecommunications industry. Over 70 per cent of Telstra's equipment, materials and service purchases are from Australian companies, and that buy Australian purchasing policy has been critical to the development of an export orientated electronics and communications industry. Indeed, Telstra has been one of the largest exporters of telecommunications equipment in this country. It is that electronics industry that has grown its exports from $50 million a year to over $1 billion a year at the present time.It has to be clearly understood that under a fully privatised Telstra there would be no such pressure to maintain such a purchasing policy. The communications industry is a rapidly growing segment of global industry, and Australian companies must participate in that growth. But it is a competitive business and they need the demand generated by an Australian owned Telstra with a buy Australian purchasing policy to maintain the economies of scale production to enable efficiencies to be achieved and to enable those companies to stay competitive in the international marketplace. That factor will not be present if Telstra is fully privatised.It is rural and regional Australia that will pay the biggest penalty for the full privatisation of Telstra and this government's betrayal. Already rural and regional dwellers have had their level of service diminished by the sale of a third of Telstra. The part-privatisation has led to significant job losses in regional Australia—jobs that are almost impossible to replace. With those job losses has been a reduction in services to residents. Under a totally privatised Telstra it would be well nigh impossible for the federal government to enforce or to uphold the community service obligations. The threat of a $10 million fine for failure to discharge those CSOs is a sick joke, given that it is estimated now that those community service obligations would cost the company in the region of a billion dollars.People of regional areas of Australia, particularly northern Australia, are certainly not stupid. They have a real concern for their economic futures and they know that, if they do not have appropriate access to the sorts of on-line services their metropolitan counterparts do, they will labour under a massive competitive disadvantage for decades to come.Effective communications is central to the economic development of our great regions, particularly in northern Australia. It is those communities that will be most disadvantaged by what this government is proposing to do. It is another act of betrayal in a long list of betrayals of the promises the Howard government made to rural and regional Australia. Those people know that untimed local calls, which they now enjoy, will become a thing of the past under full privatisation. They also know from experience of privatisation of other public utilities such as electricity that full privatisation will mean declining levels of service to rural and regional customers.Only last Thursday, on 31 March 1998, the Australian Communications Authority, in its third Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin reporting on service performance of the major carriers, including Telstra, had this to say about Telstra's customer performance at the moment:Telstra again reported mixed service performance results for the quarter. Results for provision of new services on or before the agreed commitment date declined for all customer categories, in particular, performance for country customers declined by nine percentage points. Performance for restoration of service and fault reporting indicators once again declined during the December 1997 quarter, with country customers suffering the most.Of course we know why the Prime Minister has announced the full privatisation of Telstra at this time: he and his ramshackle government are under siege over Senator Parer's breaches of the ministerial code of conduct and the Prime Minister's failure to sack him. But this is not an announcement that has been greeted enthusiastically by the people of Australia.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Corio made an allegation that Senator Parer breached the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister and the government have pointed out that has not occurred. That is a reflection on the minister. I would ask that he desist and that he withdraw that reflection.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order. I will ask the member to continue but to be careful with his comments.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The members of the government are very sensitive tonight on the Parer affair, aren't they. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister should have sacked him. The Prime Minister established the code of conduct, and Senator Parer violated it time and again. If you do not like it—3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. The member has already complained about a lack of time to talk. I suggest that he should use his time as arranged by his side to talk and not to bring up irrelevant issues.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order, but I once again draw the member's attention to the fact that he is debating the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998. I ask him to direct his remarks at that legislation.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I was explaining to the House and the listeners why the government made this announcement to fully privatise Telstra at this time. I think it is a fairly obvious reason to all: the Prime Minister was under pressure because of the violations of the ministerial code of conduct by one of his senior ministers and because of calls from the opposition for the Prime Minister to sack him.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I mentioned before that the member opposite accused the Minister for Resources and Energy of breaching the ministerial code of conduct. He has said that. That clearly is a reflection on the minister. He has not breached the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister has said that. I would ask you to direct the honourable member for Corio not to make reflections such as he has just made on the Minister for Resources and Energy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order, but I will direct the honourable member to direct his remarks at the legislation before the House.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The announcement to fully privatise Telstra has certainly not been greeted enthusiastically by the people of Australia, if the polls are any indication of voter sentiment. Since the government made its announcement three polls have indicated majority opposition to this measure that is being proposed by the government. A recently published Morgan poll indicated 62 per cent of people were against the full privatisation of Telstra. The West Australian poll on 24 March indicated 60 per cent are opposed. The Herald Sun , in its Melbourne poll on 19 March, indicated 58 per cent of Australians are against the full sale. I can understand, in the face of these polls, the sensitivity of members of the government on this particular piece of legislation. Those polls are hardly a ringing endorsement of a policy announcement that was intended to turn around the fortunes of this beleaguered and ramshackle government.The arguments the government has mounted justifying the sale on the basis of improvements to the budget bottom line are similarly flawed. The government provides a static analysis which indicates that, after retiring public debt and taking into account the loss of Telstra dividends, the budget would be better off by $1.2 billion. Given that Telstra dividends have grown on average since 1992 by 15.6 per cent per annum, the crossover point where dividends would be greater than the savings on public debt is 2002-03. The nation gains for five years in budget returns, then loses forever. That will be Prime Minister John Howard's great legacy to the nation in the wake of the Telstra sale: a short-term five-year budgetary gain and a loss for the rest of the 21st century.In summary, there are very compelling reasons why this great public enterprise should stay in public hands. From the point of view of access and equity to the information age, it is most important that Telstra remain in government hands. Telstra have spawned an electronics and telecommunications industry in this country that is now making great gains in the international marketplace. It is very important that the demand that is generated by Telstra's `buy Australian' policy, which would be removed if foreign interests got control of this great company, stay to the benefit of Australian companies.From a customer service point of view, we have already seen, with the one-third privatisation of Telstra, a significant decline in customer service. Of course, the gravest impact of all in an adverse way will be felt by residents in rural and regional Australia. It is those Australians, particularly in the north of Australia, who know very well that the full privatisation of Telstra will disadvantage them quite considerably. That is why the National Party backbench is nervous and that is why several rural Liberals are nervous as well. Telstra should stay in public hands.21:31:002601Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I listened to the contribution made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) with some amazement. The honourable member for Corio appears to have forgotten the sad and shabby history of 13 years of Labor government and the hypocrisy shown by the former Labor government. Time and time again that government said that it would not privatise public assets—that it would not privatise Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Yet those promises were broken time and time again.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Fisher took several points of order on relevance, and I would ask that you direct him to address his remarks to the bill, which is about the further privatisation of Telstra.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not take any point of order on relevance. My points of order were in relation to the reflections cast by the member for Corio on the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer). He really ought to listen. It ought to be appreciated that, unlike the former Labor government, this government is determined to keep its promises. We went to the people of Australia prior to the last election with a pledge that, subject to strict conditions, we would sell one-third of Telstra. We have delivered on that promise. We have now announced that we will legislate to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, and this legislation before the chamber at the moment will bring that about. We have made it clear that the people of Australia will have the choice at the next election to cast a verdict on our policy and thus this act will not become law until after the next poll. The reason that we are bringing the legislation into the parliament now is to ensure that, after we receive a further mandate to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, we will not have Senate obstruction frustrating our election policy, which had been supported by the electorate. The honourable member for Corio also wrongly accused the government of imposing a guillotine on this bill.QI4PRICEMr Price—That is correct.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is not correct. By arrangement between the parties, there is eight hours of debate on this Telstra legislation. No-one in his or her right mind could suggest that eight hours of debate is a guillotine. By agreement we will have eight hours of debate, and we believe that is fair, reasonable and appropriate.QI4PRICEMr Price—One hour for every $5 billion.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Chifley will have his go shortly, but the fact of the matter is that, unlike the former Labor government when it was in office, we are prepared to facilitate extensive legislation on important changes confronting this country.It was also interesting to listen to the honourable member for Corio speak about profit seekers. He seems to think that it is wrong that the mums and dads of Australia will be able to buy the remaining two-thirds of this important national company. The honourable member for Corio also would have us believe that Telstra does not operate in the marketplace as a commercial enterprise. He also managed to fudge the reality, which is that the government has ensured where no more than 35 per cent of Telstra could be owned by overseas interests—with not more than five per cent owned by any individual.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced on 15 March that the government will seek an explicit mandate from the Australian people at the next election to give us the opportunity to allow them to buy the balance of Australia's largest company. We are keeping the commitment we made at the last election that we would not sell more than one-third of Telstra in this term and we are seeking explicitly a further mandate. Unlike our predecessors, we are honest and upfront, and we do not apologise for that.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Is this a core or non-core promise?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—You ought not to interject, my friend. Why don't you tell us that the Labor Party in its draft policy was going to sell a further 16½ per cent of Telstra but that policy was withdrawn at the last minute? The Labor Party will do anything and say anything. The Labor Party has a sad and sorry history of saying that it will not sell public assets, and then breaking those promises. The difference between this government and its predecessor is that when we have sold public assets we have paid off debt. When we sold the first one-third of Telstra, we retired a considerable amount of debt and we had a social bonus—the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust of Australia. We are the only government to have such a wide ranging policy to address the impact of 200 years of European settlement in Australia.The Prime Minister has indicated that when we sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra we will be able to retire 40 per cent of Australia's remaining foreign debt and that there will be a further social bonus. I believe that this will be as far reaching, visionary and necessary as the social bonus delivered by the sale of the first one-third of Telstra.Many people listening may not be aware that the coalition inherited from the former Labor government a debt of some $96 billion. The interest payment on that debt cost taxpayers $8 billion last year, without reducing the actual debt at all. In selling the remaining two-thirds, we will pay off a substantial portion of that debt and we will in doing so make a better future for our children and grandchildren. The honourable member for Corio claimed that by selling Telstra we would deprive the government of an income stream. He maintained that this was used to support infrastructure such as schools. He ought to look at what respected economist Chris Richardson from Access Economics has said: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 is the saving in interest versus the . . . loss of income from Telstra.So the honourable member for Corio has been shown to be selling a shabby and false argument, because the government and the people of Australia will be infinitely better off, not worse off, through the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra.He made mention of the fact that there has been some reduction in the employment sector of Telstra. That is nothing to do with the privatisation of Telstra. Many companies, whether private or publicly owned, have reduced their number of employees, as it is necessary to compete effectively in the marketplace. Telstra has been exposed to the blowtorch of competition and obviously it is a leaner and meaner but better company. Telstra will provide a very effective service to rural and regional Australia, and the government has legislated for the community service obligation. The minister himself mentioned that there would be a penalty of some $10 million at times if Telstra fails to deliver on its community service obligation.It must also be appreciated that the idea of governments owning telecommunications companies has not become popular in recent times. Right throughout the world, governments have been divesting themselves of telecommunications companies because there is a general recognition that in a deregulated, privatised marketplace with competition it is simply not appropriate or necessary for governments to own them. This bill will provide to the people of Australia the opportunity to buy the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. In fact, the Labor Party sought to frighten the employees of Telstra prior to the first part sale by suggesting that they ought not take advantage of the special opportunities given to employees to participate. Well, the employees of Telstra voted with their feet: 92 per cent chose to invest in Australia's largest company. They obviously supported what the government wanted to do, and they, like other shareholders, will be the beneficiaries.The government also believes that it is important to allow the people of Australia to buy and own large Australian companies. The Labor Party, when one listens to what they have been saying in this debate, appears still to support `the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange'. The Keating and Hawke governments flogged off everything they could see and used the money they got for recurrent expenditure. Unlike them, this government is making the sale of some public assets, but we are using the proceeds to pay off debt.The Labor Party obviously opposes the attempt by this government to make Australia the largest share owning democracy in the world. Robert Menzies made Australia the largest home owning democracy in the world, but this government, in giving Australians a further opportunity to directly share in the ownership of Telstra, will help turn Australia into a country of shareholders. We will free Telstra from the restrictions of government bureaucracy and allow it to perform better. A better Telstra will deliver better services, more choice and lower prices to its customers around Australia. Phone prices have already been coming down as a result of the coalition's historic move last year to allow competition with Telstra, and this will continue.Let us look at the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). He said that the government is selling Telstra for `tawdry electoral purposes'. What reasonable person could say that retiring $40 billion in Labor accumulated public debt could be for tawdry electoral purposes? He also said, referring to the Prime Minister, `that without consultation the Australian public would stand idly by and that the opposition would stand idly by and witness the privatisation of a public asset'. What we have done is to announce to the Australian people what we plan to do, and we are seeking a mandate to achieve that. The Prime Minister does not expect the Australian people to stand idly by. He does not expect the opposition to stand idly by. What we are doing is going out to the electorate and saying exactly what we plan to do. The Labor Party, on the other hand, has a long history of saying one thing and doing another. The Leader of the Opposition also claimed, wrongly, that it is actually impossible to legislate for community service obligations. What absolute nonsense. We already have legislation on the statute books for community service obligations, and I must say that legislation will remain in place.The Leader of the Opposition says that the people own the system through the government and that this legislation eliminates people's shareholding in Telstra, yet 1.8 million Australians now own shares in Telstra, including 92 per cent of Telstra employees. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that this legislation will somehow divest the ownership of Telstra from the people of Australia. What we are doing is permitting ordinary citizens of Australia to invest in this important national enterprise.The Leader of the Opposition also shamefully referred to the Natural Heritage Trust as a blatantly political exercise. We make no apology for repairing the impact of 200 years of European settlement on our environment. Environmental groups have said that the Natural Heritage Trust is the most wide-ranging program ever put in place by any government to benefit the environment of Australia.To sum up, the bill before the House is honest, up-front and it follows on from our election promise given prior to the 1996 poll. We are saying to the electorate: if you re-elect us at the next election, whenever it is, we will sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, subject to very strict conditions. We will ensure that no more than 35 per cent of Telstra is owned by overseas interests, that no more than five per cent is owned by any individual and that the community service obligations remain in place so that there is a quality telephone service regardless of where people happen to live in Australia.Mr Price interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member for Chifley ought to stand up and say that this bill is a win-win-win situation. It is a win for the people of Australia overall, it is a win for those who choose to buy Telstra shares and it will be a further win for the Telstra employees who no doubt will again participate in this share offer. The Labor Party once again stands condemned and its hypocrisy is breathtaking. It ought to stop scaremongering and support this very important bill, which will allow people throughout Australia to invest once again in this important national company. I commend the bill to the chamber.21:48:002603Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) alludes to the 92 per cent of Telstra employees who have taken up the share offer. With the deal that was offered—a bonus one for two, as I understand it, and a time purchase arrangement—one wonders about the eight per cent who did not take it up, given that 24,000 of them have lost or are about to lose their jobs. Why wouldn't they take it up? In its explanatory memorandum to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , the government sets out its philosophic reasons for selling off the remainder of Telstra. It says:There is no good public policy reason, nor market failure reason, for the Australian Government to continue to own a communications carrier.It goes on:It is intended that the further privatisation of Telstra will enhance its competitiveness and performance.For whom does the phone ring, one might ask? The performance of a privatised Telstra will enhance the incomes of those fortunate enough to hold shares in the company. It will not enhance the services to those people in rural and remote areas who do not form part of a large competitive telephone market and who will be at the end of the line when it comes to repairs, installations and new services. Why would a privatised Telstra, for instance, outlay $100,000 to install a data line to a farm north of Bathurst, using two machines and three men for a week, without seeking full cost recovery?Without the monitoring and control a publicly owned and operated service provides, there will be an inevitable watering down, and the universal service obligations—untimed local calls, customer service guarantees and so on—will be consigned to the pages of history as quaint political rhetoric of the 1990s. There are corporations salivating out there, waiting to get a bit of the Telstra action. This is lazy, non-productive investment, whether it be by Australian corporations or foreign—sitting like praying mantises while the golden moth of Telstra is handed to them to devour.This government thought it a clever political move to sell off what Australians already own, but this two-thirds sell-off is not popu lar, whatever the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) might say about the mums and dads who will be able to buy a bit of the action. Mums and dads are in fact—according to Labor's figures—selling up and the corporations are moving in. Surprise, surprise! Sixty per cent of Australians opposed the first sale of Telstra and 62 per cent oppose the next sale. It is not a popular move. The government is not acting in the interests of the majority of Australians. Something as important as this should have been put to the Australian people in a referendum.This government cannot claim a mandate to sell Telstra just because it announces it and introduces the legislation prior to an election it will probably win because people out there have got such a lousy choice—apart from in Calare and several other notable seats—including, I expect, the seat of Parkes. The member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) says he gets only one complaint a month about Telstra. I wonder why. Perhaps they are ringing me, so frustrated are they with the inability of the National Party to listen to their concerns. They gave up on Labor long ago. In this proposed Telstra sale, the government is demonstrating that it governs not for the mums and dads but for the elite, the shareholding public, the well-off, the top 30 per cent.As Robert Manne pointed out in an article last week, the free market and economic rationalist views dominate within the economic elite but nowhere else. He rightly points out that the majority of Australians still want protection for Australian industry, generous state provisions for needs like pensions and health and still prefer government ownership of critical services—like Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the power industry and water resources. These are the ordinary people, with ordinary expectations not based on greed but on need—dare I say the battlers?We should not kid ourselves that this two-thirds final sell-off of Telstra is popular. It is not, and the government stands condemned. The vast bulk of proceeds from this sale will be used to retire debt. Then what? How do we pay our remaining debt and the debt that will occur in years down the track? Do we flog off the Lodge, privatise Parliament House or outsource government perhaps? We would rob future generations of an asset any country would be proud of—an asset generating a $3 billion dividend a year and a revenue stream that could fund the environmental crisis facing this country on a permanent basis.The Murray-Darling Basin alone is an environmental time bomb. We heard this week that the Murray has stopped flowing into the ocean for the first time in 20 years. Its feeder river is salty, toxic and infested with the devastating European carp. Its cropping demands are out of kilter with the supply of water, its lands are polluted by rising water tables, its trees are dying, and the landcare and natural heritage programs are unable to keep up with the inexorable decline and degradation. Quarantining but half a billion dollars of the Telstra dividend should have been the sort of vision and forward planning needed to arrest the crisis, but this government has thrown away that opportunity. I suppose it expects market forces to repair the environment as well.In his second reading speech the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Mr Fahey) cited the pro-competitive countries like the US, Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand, where private ownership coupled with robust government imposed safeguards are the norm. Ask the Brits about the benefits of privatised water supplies—increased costs and a deterioration in services. Ask the people of Auckland about corporatised power supplies. Ask the mums and dads and ordinary people of Europe, where the wave of privatisation since 1992 has cost five million jobs. Ask the people of Australia about a privatised Commonwealth Bank and its total rejection of any community service obligation in smaller country communities. It is leading the charge out of town, deserting the school savers and the pensioner clients. Profits, not people, greed, not need: that is the price of giving up control of these utilities and assets.Let me put to rest the furphy about public ownership equating with inefficiency. The Bureau of Industry Economics has shown no association between economic indicators and the type of ownership of the main enterprises in the market. Iceland and Switzerland, for example, both have publicly owned telephony infrastructures for the moment; the former has the world's lowest business user charges while the latter has the world's best revenue per line and per employee. Competition is one thing, ownership is another. You can achieve the desired marketplace competitive advantages through proper competition alone. Keeping one of the players, whether it is a bank or an insurance company or particularly if it is the world competitive Telstra, in public ownership also serves to keep the rest of the bastards honest. So what does this government do? It sacrifices three per cent of our national revenue to the benefit of several million shareholders, inevitably large corporations and 35 per cent at the moment offshore.The minister speaks of the customer service guarantee. Let me cite some recent examples from my own electorate. Daryl Wilson of Millthorpe requested a second line in January; Telstra was not able to install it until March. Ross Jones of Central West Smallgoods in Orange had his phone out twice for over a week. Carol Parker of Meadow Flat was told in early February that no phone was available to her mother in a nursing home until 10 March. With regard to a public phone in Sofala, out of action many times, people were told by Telstra that because it was in a remote area it could not be fixed for two weeks. In another remote area, Stuart Town, a subscriber was told that the phone would be fixed when Telstra got more problems in the area so as to make the repair trip cost effective to the company. This is under a third private ownership.Lisa Chamberlain, a casual teacher in Orange, had her phone out for over a week despite her pleas that she needed the phone to get work offers. Anne Deane of Lithgow waited four months for a phone connection. Dr Peter Bentivoglio, who is a neurosurgeon at St Vincents, of Lue near Mudgee in the electorate of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), cannot be contacted in an emergency. Telstra still has not provided a mobile service to the area and he cannot get a phone on because Rylstone exchange needs to be updated. Alexandra Coffer of Rylstone said that her husband was told five times that a Telstra crew would turn up. He took five separate days off and five times Telstra failed to show up. Bernie Trainor of O'Connell, who suffers from a brain tumour, was trying to get the phone on at his rural property since June last year. Telstra delivered the cable and said, `String it out yourself, dig a ditch and bury it, and we will be back when we can.' Oberon Council lodged a complaint on 3 March and two weeks later the fault had still not been rectified. So it goes on. Public phone boxes are now to be closed—five in Rylstone shire—in remote locations where there is not even a mobile service.Finally, there is the example of John Shepherd of Cullen Bullen. The line was laid across the ground to his farmhouse in January. His cattle tripped over it, his farm ute ran over it and no-one came to fix it. He was given some clips to fix it. It was not until A Current Affair covered his plight that some very overworked and overstressed Telstra men turned up last week, no doubt abandoning other urgent work around the state because the media had embarrassed Telstra. And Telstra had the gall to come down here to Parliament House a few weeks ago and, through its boss Frank Blount, brag about the great services it is providing in the bush, then threaten its own employees for trying to bring to public notice these problems. That is the arrogance and the community service of a one-third privatised Telstra.The clever political ploy of a $10 million maximum fine is just that—a clever ploy. The rigmarole alone required for a consumer to validate any complaint will be enough to deter anyone from taking on the giant, privatised Telstra.The government has only belatedly taken on board the criticisms from the bush about the lack of community service, the appalling attention to breakdowns and the delays. I gave senior Telstra management a list of over two dozen complaints on 16 February. They promised me in the local media that they would personally deal with them all. A month later, when I and my staff checked on the complainants, there had been no word from Telstra. The company said it was dealing with the list but had not realised that it promised to contact the people to apologise.The Minister Representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, detailed the Telstra performance in the House last week, spelling out in detail the very reasons why Telstra should not be privatised. Let me remind you of the report from the Australian Communications Authority:Results for the provision of new services on or before the agreed commitment date declined for all customer categories and, in particular, performance for country customers declined by 9 percentage points.It went on:Performance for restoration of service and fault reporting indicators once again declined during the December 1997 quarter, with country customers suffering the most.There we have it; CSO now means city services only, just as it applies to Optus, Vodafone and those other providers interested only in the lucrative pickings of the big return markets. In a recent article, James Cook University's John Quiggin says:. . . the benefits of such a sale to the budget line would disappear in five years . . . leaving us without the enormous financial and social benefits the retention of Telstra in public hands would provide.Quiggin says that, relative to the alternative of retaining ownership, there has not been one major privatisation in Australia where the government has made a profit. The Australian taxpayer has been ripped off, to put it mildly—and in Telstra's case enormously so, given the value placed by the market on the share.One of the major concerns about this proposal is that the government expects that, by implementing a series of penalties, it can ensure that the people of rural Australia will be adequately served by communications carriers. It is a totally absurd suggestion because, as we know, there are already a series of minimum standards and penalties in place—but already the people of regional Australia are being left behind.Peter and Helen Muller have a small farm in an isolated area north of Bathurst. Their kids are educated through the Distance Education School based at Dubbo. They have four kids under the age of six, and already the eldest are missing out on an adequate education because they do not have access to a decent phone line—just 50 kilometres north of Bathurst. And, under this arrangement, Telstra still meets its universal service obligations. The Mullers have an old copper wire leading to their property, but it cannot handle fax or data.Just stop for one second and ask yourself why governments became involved in providing telegraph and telephone services in the first place. Private operators in the sector are not new; private companies have been involved in delivering these sorts of services since they were first invented. But the reason government took control of this sector in Australia was to ensure that all Australians had equal access to the service.In fact, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 ensured that the Postmaster General was given exclusive rights of establishing, erecting, maintaining and using stations and appliances for the purpose of transmitting and receiving messages by wireless telegraphy—assuming control, as he did, of systems that had been set up by private operators between capital cities from as early as 1854. As long ago as 1859, cable was laid across Bass Strait from Victoria to Launceston—in those days a tremendous achievement—to link Tasmania into a growing nationwide network. And last week the minister asked in the other house why Telstra should be expected to provide a basic service to Hobart—not Bullamakanka, which will never get it, but Hobart.Market forces did not build our communications infrastructure; national pride, determination, creativity, research, government guidance, and public need and interest certainly did. I ask the government—in particular, members representing rural and regional seats—what has really changed since those first colonies clustered around the harbours and inlets of our vast coastline?The last time I looked Australia was still one of the most urbanised countries in the world. The people of rural Australia still, in many respects, are second-class citizens when it comes to gaining access to all-important transport and communications infrastructure—or, for that matter, any government service. I say to any country member who supports this privatisation: you are betraying the rural constituency you represent; you are putting conservative Thatcherist ideology ahead of what deep down you must surely know is in the best interests of the people of rural Australia.The mobile phones most of us take for granted today seemed like science fiction toys a little more than 20 years ago. Who would have thought back in the seventies when Telecom was carved out of the PMG that today it would be one of Australia's biggest companies perhaps worth more than $50 billion? Who knows what it will be worth in 20 years time?But there are a few things that are certain. Telstra will eventually become foreign owned and controlled, whatever assurances are given now. There will probably be but five telecommunications giants worldwide within 15 years. Country people will not have access to telecommunication services of the standards they require. The Commonwealth will forgo billions of dollars in revenue that will end up in the hands of those wealthy enough to become shareholders, including the current and soon to grow 35 per cent of foreign owners. Our grandchildren will ask why their forefathers sold those magnificent enterprises that were owned by all Australians, served all Australians and benefited all Australians.They sold the Commonwealth Bank, the Labor Party; they sold Qantas, the Labor Party; and they sold Telstra, the coalition. They are both guilty. And now they have sold out Australia—especially the bush.22:05:002607Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—Talking about selling out the bush, I take a lot of notice of the member for Calare (Mr Andren) when every time he votes with the Labor Party over native title. If that is not a sell-out of his rural constituency, I would like to know what is. He goes to the people of his constituency and says, `Vote for me, I'm independent,' but when it comes to an issue as important as his constituents' property rights he votes with the Labor Party. He does not care, as demonstrated by his vote on schedule 4—a schedule clearly defining the circumstances under which people can keep from going to court by referring to one part of the Native Title Act to find out whether or not their property extinguishes native title. So, when we start to moralise in this place about representing our constituents, get on the right track.The reality is that the member for Calare made another great admission: he cannot get a telephone fixed in his electorate. I have been here for 18 years, mate, and I can tell you that throughout that time I have had complaints about people who could not get their telephones fixed—and that was manna from heaven for me electorally, because I got them fixed the same day, and I still do. If you cannot do it, there is something wrong with your capacity—not with Telstra. You are a failure.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for O'Connor will address his remarks through the chair.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Let me repeat that to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would well know that from your work in your own electorate. Fixing the tax act, that is difficult—but not being able to get a telephone fixed! The member for Calare has been keeping a record of his failures so he can come in here and make a speech. What a blooming hopeless member of parliament! Let us put that aside, because I do not want to waste much time on him. I do not have much appreciation for his ability.The reality is that we have looked at this issue in many ways. Let me remind the House of one thing: when the government of the day borrows more money than the value of its assets, they are sold, they are gone. This House is responsible for rebalancing the books. The tragedy of the privatisation program of the ALP was that, firstly, having promised the workers of the Commonwealth Bank, having promised its own caucus—and it does not say much for them—and having promised the people of Australia that it would never sell more than half the Commonwealth Bank, it came back and sold it.The other tragedy was that they spent the money. They had already borrowed and taken our debt up to a point where we have an annual interest bill of $10,000 million a year—much more than they netted from Qantas. I think they got only about $4 billion for Qantas, and it was nearly as much as they netted out of one tranche of the Commonwealth Bank. We have got that every year because of the money they borrowed. Having sold the assets of this country, what did they do with the money? They spent it. They come in here and they tell us that the easy way back into government is to do the same thing again—but the next time round there will be no assets to sell. The simple reality is that they sold Telstra because they borrowed in excess of what it was worth. That should never be forgotten. This government has good reasons for selling Telstra, and they are all to do with economic efficiency. The reality is that the government is also obliged to do it for the future of our children.The member for Calare, as I recollect, suggested that we have lost $3,000 million a year in dividends. I have just put a phone call through to my office because I understand that figure is closer to a billion dollars a year. The interest savings on this current proposed repayment of $40 billion arising from the sale of the rest of Telstra will reduce our interest costs by $4 billion a year. The net cash flow value to the Australian people is $3,000 million a year, which we might put into some of the issues that are the responsibility of government, such as addressing the health and retirement needs of the less fortunate in our community.The simple fact is that you do not need to own a communication facility to deliver the service. It was Maggie Thatcher who set that example in England. I will never forget her remarks to our party room many years ago when she said in her special voice—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, would possibly remember this little lecture too—`You have to get government out of business. After all, if we politicians were any good at business we would be in business.' That is the fundamental question. The member for Calare turns around and says to us that there is no difference between the efficient running of a private business and that same business in the hands of government.It is interesting that so much attention is being paid to public hospitals around Australia at the moment. I remind the Labor Party that the only hospitals held by the Commonwealth were the repatriation hospitals, and they quite correctly decided to get rid of them. It is interesting to me that in my state of Western Australia the state government declined the opportunity to run another hospital. It is a very interesting set of figures because as a consequence a private operator, Ramsay Health Group, got the hospital. They reduced the staff from 1,100 to 700 and got rid of all the waiting lists in 10 months. Surely that is what we are about. Surely we are about getting rid of the waiting lists in hospitals and providing better services that people want from telecommunications.The member for Calare bemoaned the fact that there will be only five major telephone companies left in the world. We are creating the circumstance where one of them might be Telstra. If we left it in the hands of government it would certainly never happen. But they will be in the position to raise the capital on the stock exchanges and expand what is already one of the biggest ownerships of international cables of any country in the world. It is an accident of history but we have them. We are perfectly positioned through Telstra to be one of those five great companies and to bring in huge import revenues to Australia.QI4PRICEMr Price—Import revenues?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, we will import the money. You can call it export revenue if you like, it does not matter, but it is a rather peculiar situation where the money is flowing back and the service is going out. The reality is that all of that is possible because we are providing the opportunity.I well remember the arguments arising from the Labor Party when they said to us all those years ago that you could not keep the Commonwealth Bank any longer in the hands of the government because we could not give it the funds necessary for it to compete with other private banks. Please remember where all this started. It started, I think correctly so, when the previous government decided to introduce competition to the telecommunications market. From then on, as it was with the Commonwealth Bank, it becomes imperative that you privatise these concerns or their private competitors run over the top of you.We heard the member for Calare start to run all his furphies. The member for Chifley (Mr Price) might have had something to do with this, because back in 1986 the Labor government, in trying to establish its case for the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, was confronted with the first campaign of furphies. The union was out there, as they are again, spreading fear and loathing wherever they hope someone will listen.QI4PRICEMr Price—Shareholders.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—No, that is the union. The shareholders are the workers. There is a big difference in this day and age between the institution of the union and the people who go to work every day. The union is a self-generating, self-protecting institution. It has nothing to do with the welfare of workers. I watched the MUA people come here the other day, and one of them had two Mont Blanc pens in his pocket—two! I can tell you what they cost because I have managed to afford one. I nearly thought about time payment. We were told of this massive cross-subsidy, so they had an inquiry and they gave it the rather catchy name of Poles apart in 1986.QI4PRICEMr Price—I'm innocent, Wilson.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—If you were, it is an interesting point, because what did this report discover? It talked about this cross-subsidy. They had been told the minute that you bring in deregulation we will have to walk out of the bush. We cannot stay there. The committee did a bit of homework on this and it said:Whatever the accounting difficulties, the Committee still supports the present cross-subsidy for a number of reasons.It did not say there was not a cross-subsidy on an individual basis, but it stated:Firstly, it is crucial to distinguish between `cross-subsidy' and `profitability'. Telecom customers in high-cost areas are not necessarily unprofitable for Telecom. They contribute less per service than users in low-cost districts but their contribution to Telecom's revenue is still positive.That was back in 1986. It continues:Non-metropolitan customers of Telecom in 1984-85 paid for all the direct costs incurred in their districts as well as for $433.8m of Telecom's total indirect costs.In other words, a profit of nearly half a billion. The report stated:As the largest component of these indirect costs relates to items such as interest on borrowings, which are not necessarily directly attributable to non-metropolitan areas, the loss of all rural and remote Telecom customers would in fact impose a net additional cost on metropolitan users. Rural and remote users contribute towards Telecom's indirect costs and any contribution to these costs is better than none.Another part of that report said that there was actually a cross-subsidy paid to private telephone users in metropolitan areas. It is a fact that there is a lot more to providing a telephone service than providing a bit of wire. In paragraph 7.9, the committee makes a point about access externality. What that means is people do not buy telephone services if they cannot ring their relatives in the bush; businesses do not buy telephone services if they cannot ring their customers in the bush. The reality is that those services will be provided on good commercial grounds.Again, the member for Calare bemoaned the fact that someone only had a copper wire and might not get an Internet service. I want to see them get Internet services, but I think they are more likely to get them through a low orbiting satellite service than they are through running out another bit of wire. In fact, those services will be implemented here in Australia by Iridium in September, according to the advice given to a seminar organised by the government members' backbench committee on communications the other night. We were shown the handpieces that will be used which will allow you to access the digital network if you are within range. You just plug the digital phone back into the other handpiece, which is not much bigger than the phones that came out at the origin of mobile phone services, and you can talk through that same phone, through the satellite, wherever you want to go.The opening cost for that outfit is about $5,000 and the price per minute is going to be about $4. But for how long? There is a second low orbiting satellite company called Global Mobility which is about to start up. Of course, we know from the history of modern technology that those prices will fall dramatically. Those phones are suitable for faxstream; they are suitable for all of your data transmission in a limited way. So the realities are that the options that are arising are such that Telecom probably could not have competed in all these fields if it was coming back to government all the time.But, of course, the member for Calare happened to raise the issue—his little story that no doubt he will run all around his electorate with—of what has been going on in Auckland in terms of the power supply. What a scandal it is that every second Australian has been told that is a privatised operation. He was a bit more clever; he used the word `corporatised'. Of course the Labor Party corporatised Telecom; it has been corporatised for years, but it remained a government instrumentality until the coalition sold a third of it. The reality is that the Mercury power supplier in Auckland is a government instrumentality. It is government that let the lights go out. It is about time that that point was made and people stopped telling fibs about it, because that is the situation. We read it in the media—they stand to be criticised on that as well because they let this myth be perpetrated that Mercury is some private organisation owning the distribution system in Auckland. It is not; it is a government system.The reality is that it is not the role of government to own business, but it does have a role to regulate such essential services as telecommunications. The Labor Party were the ones who decided to deregulate it and they did so with our support. At least we stuck to our principles in opposition, something that they have abdicated completely. But the realities are that, in imposing those regulations, you do so as a condition of licence. I heard someone argue one day that you do not tell Woolworths how many supermarkets they can open. Local government does to a degree, but the reality is that Woolworths are selling groceries and they do not get licensed to do so. When you licence someone in this area, you naturally impose conditions, and this government has. In fact, it has relied somewhat on the universal service obligation which I think was originally laid down by the Labor Party. I will stand corrected by the member for Chifley if I am wrong, but that has got to be upgraded. It is patently silly to suggest, for instance, that a group of people in a small community of 200 are so remote that they should have to wait 27 months for a phone.QI4PRICEMr Price—There's nothing in the bill that upgrades it.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—In fact, if the member for Chifley wants to bet with me that we do not address this issue, he is welcome to do so. Sir, I do not know what we would be putting on it; maybe we could bet each other a haircut or something like that? But, other than that, the reality is that we are going to make sure of it. I have got huge faith in Minister Alston. I have had communications with him from day one about mobile phone services—about analog and digital. Whilst the Labor Party signed up for digital and left the government of Australia with a problem that was very difficult to address, because time has proved that there is a place for analog in our network, it is our government that has told those people that when digital is the only remaining service it has got to cover the total areas previously covered by analog. That will mean some additional stations because we know digital does not cover the same distance. That is what they will have to do. That is appropriate.I thank the minister for listening to my entreaties, and no doubt those of others on our side of the House, saying that we had to do something. It was he when looking at the change to digital transmission—it is unique to my electorate at the moment with satellite TV—who came out voluntarily and offered $750 to each and every owner of the old style analog black box to assist them in buying a new digital one. There has been no fanfare about that, but that is what the minister has done. He has had other problems with this changeover due to commercial thuggery, you might say—TV stations beating each other around the head and leaving their customers until last—but the minister has been active doing everything within his power to address these matters, and I congratulate him for it. He will address the outstanding issues relating to the universal service obligations which will be sensible and will represent the interests of country people.QI4PRICEMr Price—They are not in the bill.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I am making the point that it will be changed. We have talked to him in our party room. I think he understands the representations we make. One that I made was, as I have communities of 200 people living within a few kilometres of a community of 4,000 people, why should it be that one group gets a guaranteed telephone connection in a matter of days and the other in a matter of years? It is a silly proposition and it does not recognise the demand on the infrastructure. That needs changing. The minister listened to that, and I am sure we will see something come out of it. As I stand here, I guarantee to my constituents that it will be done.The fundamental issue of selling Telstra is to give it the chance to be the major organisation that Australia needs and to give Australians, including the workers of Telstra, the chance to be the recipients of that profit through shareholding. Also, the government taking its proper role to regulate the entire industry in terms of adequate service levels is the way that all governments should run. Without it, we end up investing all our money in business when it is our job to look after poor people. (Time expired)22:25:002611Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I firstly want to defend the member for Calare (Mr Andren) from the attacks of the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I do that by reading a press release of 31 March from the Australian Communications Authority. It is headed `Carrier Performance During December Quarter 1997' and states:Telstra again reported mixed service performance results for the quarter. Results for provision of new services on or before the agreed commitment date declined for all customer categories. In particular, performance for country customers declined by nine percentage points. Performance for restoration of service and fault reporting indicators once again declined during the December 1997 quarter, with country customers suffering the most.My leader and party are opposed to this privatisation. I say to the member for O'Connor: you have not really thought it through. Towards the end of his speech, he cottoned on to the universal service obligation. I happen to agree with the remark that the plain old, ordinary telephone should be the minimal requirement for the universal service obligation is quite dated. In fact, I want to compliment an earlier contribution by the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who pointed out to the House that we are depopulating rural and regional Australia.As an urban Labor member with a poor electorate, I say that this ought to be a matter of concern. If anything, I would have thought National Party members would have been saying of farmers and small business in rural and regional Australia that they should not just have the prices that they are being offered at the moment but in fact they should have lower prices in order to increase their competitiveness. They do suffer a significant disadvantage. But what does the member for O'Connor say? He says, `Look, if you've got a problem in rural and regional Australia, don't worry, spend $5,000 with a satellite dish and for a mere $4 a minute all your problems are solved, you will have digital service.' What bloody great news for the bush that is!It is true that I was involved in the deregulation that we undertook in 1988 and then later in 1991. I say to the House that I am amazed at the National Party. When I first came into this parliament you could guarantee that the National Party would speak up—if not in this parliament, in the joint party room—to ensure that the needs of rural and regional Australia were not sold out. Undoubtedly, they are being sold out in this bill.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) takes great satisfaction from the fact that 92 per cent of Telstra employees are now shareholders. I think that is a good thing. I do not have a problem with it. But what I do have a problem with is that the Prime Minister condones Telstra when they say, `We will sack you if you start reporting difficulties of service problems in rural and regional Australia. Shareholder or worker'—both roles—`we will sack you, we will gag you. How dare you publicly alert your customers to how poor the service is or the decline in service.' I am surprised that his government allows shareholders to be so gagged.There is no doubt that the urban poor and rural and regional Australia will suffer the consequences. The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned community service obligations. I well remember the department saying, `Look, we ought to put these out to tender, Telstra might be unsuccessful,' completely missing the point that you have to lock the dominant carrier, Telstra, into providing services for the bush. What rural and regional Australia require is far more than a plain, ordinary telephone service. I would have thought that the members from the bush would have given this bill a lot of scrutiny and would have said, `Look, we are completely dissatisfied with it. You cannot privatise this.'Debate interrupted.Adjournment261210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.261222:30:002612Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In this adjournment debate I would like to speak about the work of the Blacktown Migrant Resource Centre in my electorate of Greenway. My wife, Jan, and I attended the MRC's 10th AGM and I was pleased with the overflow attendance indicating our multicultural community's support for the work of this particular organisation. With over 150 different multicultural groups in Greenway, the MRC plays a major role in assisting ethnic communities to settle into the Australian environment. I was pleased to read the annual report and to find out how this organisation is responding to its mission statement, which is to promote and assist in the development of multicultural society through ensuring equal access, opportunity and participation of all migrants and refugees.One report that I was particularly interested in, in view of the debate in this place recently over aged care, was the community aged care package program. This project is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services and consists of 20 packages equally divided between the Filipino, Maltese, Polish and Ukrainian communities. The aim of the project is to help older people improve their quality of life by providing a combination of services delivered by trained multilingual workers, hence giving them the option to live independently at home instead of going into a hostel for care. The project employs six bilingual care workers and a lawn mowing contractor. The language skills of these people prove to be very helpful and clients are pleased that they can communicate in their own language.The care for our aged multicultural community is a major issue in Greenway. While there are excellent nursing homes catering for specific ethnic groups such as Maltese, Polish, German speaking and Hungarian people, the needs of our aged ethnic community will increase and many will not be able to provide separate nursing homes for their individual groups. So the demand for aged care packages will increase. I was delighted at the success of this pilot program which I had the honour of launching in 1997 and I wish the project coordinator, Maria Skibinski, continued success.The specialist migrant placement officers program is funded by the New South Wales government Department of Education and Training. This program aims to provide assistance to disadvantaged migrants to utilise or enhance their skill, experience and qualifications. The placement officer deals with a range of issues relating to qualifications recognition, work experience, training and courses leading to the acquisition of additional or new skills, liaising with government departments and generally assisting with job seeking skills. The program also includes extensive linking with employer and other organisations for the purpose of work experience placements and employment opportunities.Legislation passed in 1997 extended migrant waiting periods for a range of Department of Social Security benefits from 26 weeks to two years. Therefore, it is important that new migrants find employment speedily upon their arrival. While the general unemployment rate in Australia is still far too high, the rate for migrants, particularly new arrivals from non-English speaking countries, is even higher. In 1997, there were fewer training courses available for new migrants and some of these have now become fee-for-service courses, placing additional burdens upon those whose finances are already stretched.The success of the migrant placement program can be appreciated by the fact that in the past 12 months 395 clients, of whom 72 were recent arrivals, have been assisted. Of these, 63 work experience placements were achieved, well in excess of the 25 contracted for, 28 clients obtained full-time employment, 70 found casual or part-time work, 80 entered long-term training such as traineeships and 91 enrolled in shorter training, including English language courses.Maria Votano, in her report as the MRC coordinator, advised us that centre staff had participated in various forums addressing issues affecting migrants and refugees. Mr Speaker, you can see from this thumbnail sketch, the important service that the MRC is providing for our large multicultural population. I congratulate the management committee members and staff for their magnificent work.261322:35:002613Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—Yacht racing is a virus that infects and uses sailors. Once infected, there is no known antibiotic to negate the effects. Sailing has been a human concern since the first people found themselves separated by a body of water from greener pastures they wished to investigate. From the first unstable log to today's ballasted, carbon fibre tubes, the driving force has not altered. Sailing is still a primordial desire to overcome nature in its own terms.It is hard to believe that the desire to foster the Brisbane to Gladstone yacht race began with a dozen or so sailing enthusiasts in Doug Drouyn's music store in George Street in Brisbane. Doug Drouyn wanted to create an ocean race for Queensland after being part of the 1947 Sydney to Hobart race. He and his friends became the founding members of the Queensland Cruising Yacht Club and floated the idea of a large boat cruiser race in Queensland in 1948. By November 1947, the members had met to seriously discuss the cruise race to Bowen. This did not eventuate because insufficient funds were available to stage such a race and it was considered dangerous to set a course that would require night sailing through unlit reefs and islands.Whilst Bowen proved impractical, Gladstone was enthusiastically accepted. Gladstone had a suitable safe port, an established yacht club, enthusiastic members and it was close enough for the yachts to reach it during the Easter period. Unfortunately, a cyclone hit Gladstone just prior to the first race and caused widespread devastation, throwing the race in doubt. Further doubt was caused by the noble gesture of certain members of the club offering funds needed to stage the race to help with the cyclone relief. Fortunately, Gladstone's need for funds was less urgent than the desire for the race, and the race proceeded as planned. The club secretary, Doug Drouyn, said:It is now the intention of the club to conduct the race as an appeal for funds for the relief of cyclone victims.He went on to point out:It has been an unwritten law among sailing men that boats in distress must be assisted and at the present time Gladstone resembles a boat in trouble.Several cheques were presented at the post-race receptions. The Courier-Mail described the first race as `painted ships on a painted ocean' and reported that over 6,000 people watched from Woody Point. In Gladstone the crews were welcomed as heroes, a civic reception was held and Gladstone's mayor, J.F. O'Malley, toasted the QCYC officials and crews and indicated in no uncertain terms his view of the historic significance and continued success of the race.In 1955 the start of the race shifted to the bayside suburb of Sandgate, which is in my electorate of Lilley. Rumour has it that the reason they moved the race was that the toll collectors on the Hornibrook Highway refused to give the yacht club a donation for a trophy. May I thank the toll collectors for their decision to not sponsor the trophy because the race has found a wonderful home in Sandgate and my husband and I always enjoy watching the ships leave every Easter.I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ivan Holm, who sailed in the first race and continued to do so until 1995. Ivan completed 47 consecutive Brisbane to Gladstone races, all but four in his own yacht, Laurabada, which will compete again this year for her 46th tour. Unfortunately, Ivan passed away in July last year. His ashes were scattered on Lady Musgrave Island, so he will be remembered by all the sailors as the fleet sails past Lady Musgrave Island this year. Forty-seven consecutive Brisbane to Gladstone races is a fantastic record and one that has a unique place in the sporting annals of Australia.In 1949 Ivan Holm and other intrepid sailors set out to Gladstone in the traditional displacement hulls driven by largely non-adjustable natural fibre sails and ropes set upon rigid tree trunks. Fifty years on in 1998 the fleet will utilise lightweight hulls with an array of high-tech masts which will be dictated by all sorts of electronic aids beyond the wildest dreams of the race founders. We have moved from the gravitational pull of Neptunian physics to the freeing influence of quantum mechanics of Einstein's universe.The 50th anniversary will see over 200 yachts and more than 1,600 sailors. I would like to thank Terry Halton, for my speech was sourced from an article he wrote entitled `History, the first 50 years'. This article will appear in the 50th anniversary souvenir program for the Brisbane to Gladstone yacht race, which leaves Sandgate on Friday.261522:40:002615Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to report to the House a very sad event in my electorate which I attended—the closing of the local Medicare office. In fact, last Friday I placed a wreath at the office in sad memory of the service that was much appreciated by my constituents and, in truth, will be very sorely missed.Why Mount Druitt Medicare office closed I have great difficulty rationally explaining, because it was not as though it was some small office. It is true that probably Penrith and Blacktown are within the 10-kilometre zone, but it is also true for many of my constituents that travelling out of Chifley to Blacktown or Penrith represents a great hardship and a great trial. Other members may not experience that, it may not be a problem for them, but it certainly is for me.I was outside the Medicare office recently. It was interesting because there was a young mum there minding some kids. Her friends were doing the shopping. They shortly returned, and it was her turn to go and do the shopping. When I explained what I was doing, she was absolutely horrified. She understood what the extra burden would be. Instead of just getting a refund at the Medicare office at the shopping centre at Mount Druitt, people would have to travel to Penrith or Blacktown.I am not ashamed to say that a lot of my constituents are battlers. When they go to the doctor and the doctor charges them for a consultation—not all of the doctors bulk-bill and certainly not all of the doctors bulk-bill all customers or clients—they need to budget their money very carefully. Whilst they can pay the doctor either by cheque or cash, when they get that receipt they need to go to the Medicare office the very same day and get that refund.It is that great difficulty, if you like, of just trying to manage and balance budgets that I think the government members just have no consideration of in terms of my constituents. They do not understand how difficult they are going to make life for them with the closure of the Mount Druitt Medicare office.I have been happy to take up the cause of other issues, as I did with this. I have usually exhibited great optimism that difficulties can be overcome. I could relate to the House quite a number of successes I have had in this regard. But, notwithstanding the many thousands of signatures we got on petitions and notwithstanding the thousands of coupons that flowed through this House to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), I regret to say that at no time was I optimistic that the government would listen and change its decision in relation to Medicare.The Medicare office in Mount Druitt is but one of 13 being closed in New South Wales. The majority of offices that have closed in New South Wales are in Labor electorates. Forty-two have closed right across Australia. We were given no explanation as to why these communities such as mine are really being singled out when they will cause so much hardship.The Mount Druitt Medicare office may have closed fairly rapidly, but it will not go unnoticed by my constituents and I am sure that on election day, whenever that may be, they will remember; they will not forget.261522:45:002615Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise tonight to speak of the very positive measures that the Redcliffe City Council are taking to enhance tourism in the Redcliffe Peninsula area. The Redcliffe Easter Festival of Sails will draw tourists from far and wide to enjoy the festivities associated with the Brisbane to Gladstone yacht race and certainly it will be a night to talk about yacht racing.I was fortunate on the weekend to join my colleague the member for Lilley (Mrs Elizabeth Grace) at a ball held to commemorate the start of the race. The Blue Water Gala Ball is a tradition that has been resurrected for the 50th anniversary of the race, and it was a delight to relax to the music of the Queensland Navy Band. Although the race now starts in Shorncliffe, the initial years of the event saw the colourful flotilla leave from Woody Point, in my electorate, sail through the waters of Moreton Bay and head for the ocean to the south of Bribie Island. The member for Lilley tonight gave her wonderful historical account as to why that changed.Despite the change in starting point, the Redcliffe City Council are making the most of this fantastic event. Their program for the weekend starts on Good Friday and has activities to entice the young and old. Tourists and locals will have the opportunity to taste the local fare at the many excellent restaurants located on the foreshores of Deception Bay and Moreton Bay. There will be market stalls; children's activities; theatrical productions by the Redcliffe Youth Theatre; musical renditions by local school groups, including the Clontarf State High School Drum Group; and performances by the winners of the newly formed North Side Entertainer of the Year competition. Sporting activities will include the Redcliffe ironman event, tug of war competitions, sack races and old-fashioned egg and spoon races. Much more importantly, these are all sponsored by local business.The local businesses are not just sponsoring these events but also ensuring that people do not have any parking problems, by arranging park and drive facilities from the major shopping centres in the area. Those who want to get a closer look at the Brisbane to Gladstone yacht race will have an opportunity to cruise to the start of the race aboard the Akarma, Redcliffe's own whale watching vessel, which is an excellent venture run by a local business woman, Kerry McTaggart. Incidentally, the whale watching from Redcliffe is a venture that the local state Labor member, along with the Queensland opposition leader, would like to see curtailed.As Australia's first settlement city, the history of the area will also be on display as an integral part of the weekend's activities. The Redcliffe Historical Society will be organising heritage walks from the Redcliffe Jetty. I urge anyone who wants to experience the beauty of Queensland to visit the Redcliffe Peninsula during the Easter break. Come and sample the delicacies of our seafood industry, such as the Queensland mud crabs, Moreton Bay bugs and tiger prawns, just to name a very few of the wonderful and rich seafood that comes from my electorate.I congratulate the Redcliffe City Council and businesses in the Petrie electorate. Through their own initiatives, they are building a solid foundation for tourism on the peninsula. They are not just saying that times are hard and waiting for someone to help them out; they are getting out there and doing something very positive and making sure that their businesses improve. They are also promoting their area. By doing so, they are creating jobs for themselves and their families. Well done to the businesses of the peninsula. Also, I wish our local yachtsmen very good luck. I hope you reach Gladstone first, although no doubt my colleague from Lilley will be barracking for the Spirit of Sandgate.261622:48:002616Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I find it very interesting and indicative that the member for Chifley (Mr Price) and I are in here on this side talking about the closure of vital government services and the member for Petrie (Mrs Gambaro) is talking about yacht races, Balmain bugs and the like. But I am sure that the venture she is talking about in her own electorate is very significant and important to the local economy.I want to talk about the National Competition Council's review of the Australian Postal Corporation Act which was delivered to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on 10 March. The next day, in response to a dorothy dixer from the member for Grey (Mr Wakelin), the Treasurer was in this place during question time extolling the virtue of the report and its recommendation. He was glowing in his praise for the National Competition Council. The good news, he told the House, is that Australia Post's community service obligations, on the recommendation of the council, will remain. My question in response to the Treasurer's comments is simply, `How many National Party members and how many Liberals representing rural and regional electorates in this House agree with the Treasurer that the National Competition Council's report and its recommendations will be good for rural and regional Australia and those people who live within it?'I have checked the parliamentary database to see how many of those members representing those rural and regional seats have taken the opportunity to come into this place—whether it be in the adjournment debate, or during 90-second statements or the grievance debate—to support the Treasurer's views, to agree with the Treasurer that the National Competition Council's recommendations will be good for rural and regional Australia. There has not been one of them. Not one of them has been prepared to come in here and share the excitement expressed by the Treasurer with respect to the NCC's recommendations.They know that those recommendations, if adopted, will hit rural and regional Australia for six. There is no doubt about that. They know that the recommendations, if adopted, will result in the loss of $1.3 billion worth of Australia Post business. But, more importantly, they recognise that it is the loss of its easiest business, the cream of the crop, the most profitable end of Australia Post's business. The task left to Australia Post will be to deliver services in the most unprofitable areas of postal services. The net result will be the loss of some 15,000 jobs within Australia Post, the closure of regional mail sorting facilities and of course in the medium run the closure of both corporate and licensed post offices in rural and regional Australia.Those who want to argue that point should read the letter I have in my hand from the Deputy General Manager of the Mail Network Business Unit of Australia Post based in Sydney. He writes to the employees of the Cessnock Mail Delivery Centre:You will be well aware of the recommendations made by the NCC to Government which involve virtually total deregulation of the mail service within about 21 months.Let me tell you clearly—he goes on to say—that using AP staff to deliver mail at Cessnock is simply too expensive . . . You do not need to be an economist to work out that, if you take away from Australia Post its most profitable operations, it then loses the ability to cross subsidise its less profitable operations—those operations in rural and regional Australia.The government will have us believe, based on the NCC's recommendations, that they will directly subsidise those services out of the budget. That of course means that the postal services enjoyed by rural and regional Australia—here is the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter); I know he will agree with me on this issue—will become a year-to-year proposition. They will be at the whim of the government of the day as they frame each of their budgets. In other words, those subsidies that keep postal services alive in rural and regional Australia will be in the melting pot with so many other issues before the ERC each year. That is not acceptable to those living in rural and regional Australia. We will not wear it. I am opposed to the NCC's recommendation. I am opposed to the provocative letter which went to that Cessnock employee—(Time expired)261722:53:002617West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of my local bowls clubs—the Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club—of which I am a member. They recently celebrated their 50th anniversary, and I was fortunate enough to attend their celebrations at the clubhouse two weeks ago.The Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club was founded on 18 January 1948, two years after the men's club, with only 13 members. This club currently has 211 lady members. Originally operating from a single-room building in the club, it has grown to a spacious and modern facility. Activities within the confines of the club are very much of a friendly and hospitable nature, with the kitchen, manned mostly by volunteers, having a reputation of providing excellent meals and snacks.A number of charitable organisations have benefited from the support of the club, with donations and fundraising events held on a regular basis. Some of those supported by the Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club include the leukemia and heart foundations, Redlands District Hospital and the Salvation Army. During the Vietnam War, the ladies produced home-made cakes and biscuits which were sent to the troops in the war zone. Continuing this style of activity, the ladies produced lamingtons, and a drive realised substantial funds which were sent to assist the Charleville flood relief effort.Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club now has three playing greens and a proud record in the game of lawn bowls. There are winners of metropolitan Brisbane and state championship titles, two state singles title holders—one is a current holder of this prestigious title. Pennant flags have been won in the fourth, second and first divisions, and there have been many section wins. The members are also proud of their Australian and state administrators, with former Australian and state presidents coming from their ranks. They currently have one of their members as Chairman of Umpires on the Australian Women's Bowls Council.There have been only two life members of this fine community minded organisation; namely, Thora Morris and Dorothy Mowbray. When a club has existed for 50 years it is refreshing to note that only two people have been recognised with life membership. This indicates the high value placed on such an honour by the club and its members.The Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club is an integral part of the community of the Redlands. Wherever possible, the club makes its purchases from local suppliers, and this support has created a fond regard for the club from the local community. The club premises are used by many social, professional and community groups for meetings and activity based functions. Each year on Anzac Day the club makes a book donation through the local RSL. These books subsequently find their way into libraries at local retirement homes.I would like to commend the Cleveland Ladies Bowls Club for their 50 years of commitment, spirit and `on green' performance. They are truly an asset to the Cleveland area and in particular the electorate of Bowman.261822:56:002618Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—In saying just a few words this evening in the adjournment debate, I will continue what I was saying today about money for water development schemes. I repeat that all three statistical divisions of western Queensland had lost population at the last census. The little town of Richmond, which is right in the heart of the mid-west area, which is right in the heart of North Queensland, has a proposal for a dam on the Flinders River, which is one of the 10 or 12 major rivers in Australia. There is just one farmer along that river. Along that river are 10 million hectares of vertisol soil—the best possible soil type. They are rolling, flat black soil plains. It is a great disgrace and reflection upon every single one of us that nothing has been done in these areas.To ask private enterprise to build a dam is naive in the extreme. It is hard for me to think of a single dam built anywhere in the world by private enterprise. Yet, in looking upon dams in terms of being an investment, every single dam in Australia pays for itself every four or five years through tax revenue from the produce of the dams. Even the Ord, the great white elephant that is often pointed to, pays for itself every eight years through tax revenue.This small town of Richmond has dramatically lost population. Right in the heart of the mid-west of North Queensland, there were 2,014 residents in 1961; Richmond now has only 1,128 residents. We have lost our ministers of religion from the area. We have lost our clerk of the court from the town. We have lost part of the school. We have lost so many services from the town of Richmond. We are flat out getting the numbers for a rugby league team to run on the oval each week. Fifty per cent fewer kids from outback towns such as Richmond go on to 12th grade, and 50 per cent fewer go on to university. The reason for that is that people simply cannot afford to send their kids away to boarding schools.This town has tried desperately and worked very hard to secure a dam for its town. Freddie Tritton, a man whose name is synonymous with development and the battle for development in outback North Queensland, the long-serving shire chairman at Richmond, came up with this scheme. John Wharton, the current chairman, and Jack Brown, the chairman before him, have allocated money. No shire in Queensland has allocated more than this tiny little shire in its efforts to try to secure a dam. Some $28,000 has been devoted by the council to getting up the sorts of studies that need to be done to indicate the need for a dam and to do work on the dam itself.Roy Stankey, probably one of the hardest workers in this area, and Fred Tritton travelled all the way to Sydney at their own expense to attend an irrigation seminar and once again to try to get interest in the Richmond scheme and in the great Bradfield scheme, which would change the face of Australia forever as well.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:002619House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices2619The following notices were given:Mr Filing to move:That this House calls upon the Government to replace its existing consulate in Zagreb with an Australian Embassy to the Republic of Croatia as soon as possible.Mr Pyne to move:That this House:(1) endorses the Government's progressive immigration policy and its emphasis on skilled immigrants which creates additional demand for goods and services and community infrastructure and the consequent employment opportunities that it brings;(2) supports the Government in building community confidence in an immigration programthat reflects the needs of the Australian economy while also recognising that there remains a requirement for family reunions; and(3) agrees that immigration has played a positive role in the building of the Australian population and nation since the Second World War.Mr Rocher to present a bill for an act to require financial accountability in relation to Commonwealth support of non-public sector bodies.Mr Price to move:That this House:(1) notes that (a) notwithstanding commitments to the contrary, Telstra will close 19 REACH points from 1 July 1998 and the remaining 10 REACH points from 1 August 1998 and (b) the REACH Network allowed networks and freelancers to send video to capital city television studios;(2) condemns the Howard Government for acquiescing to an effective 24 hour television blockout of stories from rural and regional Australia;(3) expresses concern at the serious implications for rural and regional Australia; and(4) condemns the National Party Members for their impotence in defending the interest of rural and regional Australia.Documents2619The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 6 April 1998:Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B 1998 Nos. 14, 15.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—RHQ Company Determinations 1998 Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. LES 12, LES 13.Answers to Questions in Writing2620The following answers to questions were circulated:2620(Question No. 2639)26392620Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, 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).2620Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No grants have been provided to ACCI since 2 March 1996.(2) (a) Mr Mark Patterson, Chief Executive, ACCI is a member of the International Environment Issues Advisory Group (IEIAG) convened jointly by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.(2) (b) No other officers or staff of ACCI have been appointed to boards, committees or other bodies for which I have portfolio responsibility.(3) The Commonwealth pays no sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or any other expenses to any member of the IEIAG in relation to its meetings.2620(Question No. 2678)26782620Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March, 1998:Further to his answer to a question without notice about family trust loss legislation (Hansard , 28 October 1997, page 9926) in which he referred to Government consultation, with whom did the Government consult.2620Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:A large number of submissions were received in relation to the trust loss measures. Such submissions (including the identity of those who made them) are treated as confidential.2620(Question No. 2704)27042620Griffin, Alan, MPMr GriffinVU5BruceALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What happened to the Billion Trees Program initiated by the Hawke Government.(2) To what extent did the program meet its objectives, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced salinity, provision of noise and wind breaks and general visual and land improvement around Australia.2620Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The One Billion Trees Program, initiated by the Commonwealth Government in July 1989, was administered by Greening Australia, a not-for-profit community organisation, on behalf of the Commonwealth.The One Billion Trees Program has now been subsumed within the Natural Heritage Trust's Program—Bushcare: The National Vegetation Initiative. Bushcare, which will invest more than $350 million over the next four years, emphasises broad-scale planning and gives priority to district or catchment scale projects which integrate the management of remnant vegetation with extensive revegetation for a range of purposes, including: biodiversity conservation, rehabilitation of degraded land, improvement of water quality, wetlands management, improved agricultural production and lowering of saline water tables (2) (a) Greening Australia has estimated that over the life of the program, approximately 1.1 billion trees and shrubs were established by planting, direct seeding or assisted natural regeneration.(b) The plantings were located throughout Australia to address a range of environmental and natural resource issues such as: salinity, vegetation corridors and wildlife habitat, landscape amenity planting remnant vegetation degradation, and stock management.2621(Question No. 2754)27542621McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.2621McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Information in respect to the matters referred to in the honourable member's question is not readily available. To collect and assemble the information would be a major task. In the interests of efficient utilisation of Departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved in obtaining the information.