1998-04-073816REPS262301998-04-07Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice262326232623Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that on ABC-TV news last night unnamed `senior government sources' were reported as saying:There's no way the GST would apply to health.If you and your senior colleagues are prepared to rule out a GST on health services when you are talking anonymously to the press, why do you not do it here in the parliament where you can be held to account if you mislead? If you and your colleagues are prepared to rule out a GST on health services, why not on school and university fees about which you were also asked yesterday?2623Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I said yesterday, and I say it again, these are trick questions. We know what the game is. It is the game that is played before every budget. It is the game in which they ask, `Will you rule this in? Will you rule that out?' If you take the position which we do that we will announce our budget on budget night, we will announce our plans when we are ready to do so. We do not play these little tricky games, and we do not intend to. I said that yesterday.I do want to say something about being held accountable in the parliament. I do want to say something about the kind of people who put racial slurs on Prime Ministers and want to come into this parliament—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. This clearly has absolutely nothing to do with their leaking on GST matters around the gallery last night.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not making a point of order. The first part was; the second part was not.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We do want to take up the second part of the question about being accountable to the parliament. We think it is important that you are accountable to the parliament. We think it is important that if you go and smear people and inflame racial tensions, you come in here and apologise.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a further point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is relevance. This line of answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question and is not even related to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his answer directly related to the question put to him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Of course I will, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the parliament want it to be known to the Australian people that we believe in tax reform. We support tax reform. There is only one political party that wants to preserve the current unfair tax system, and it is Labor. You had 13 years to try to reform the tax system. You squibbed it and you want to be elected so you can squib it again, and we will not let you do it.26232623Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What action is the government taking to improve the integrity of the social security system and to ensure that payments only go to those who are entitled to them? In particular, what is the government's record in recovering money which has been paid to people who are not entitled to it?2623Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the member for Leichhardt, I am very pleased to say that, since being elected to government, my government has not only preserved the social security safety net but added to it in a number of areas. It has gone beyond the commitments that it made during the election campaign. The most recent example of that was our decision to link the level of the war widows' pension to average male ordinary time earnings. So in every respect it can be said that my government has fulfilled the promises that it made about the social security safety net. Any decent, compassionate society needs a strong, effective social security safety net.I think any decent society also needs a social security system that is not vulnerable to fraud and is not vulnerable to rorting. I notice that in 1994, when the member for Sydney was the Minister for Social Security, he made the rather self-satisfied declaration that after an independent review of the system over which he presided as minister, he found the compliance problem had been effectively solved. He said that his government had been at the cutting edge in combating fraud and compliance problems.I take the opportunity of praising the job that Senator Newman has done as Minister for Social Security. She has been able to combine a compassionate concern for the less privileged people in the Australian community with a very sensible commitment to ensure that the hard-working people of Australia get value for money and that those who are not entitled to social security payments do not receive them.I wish to inform the House of a report on social security compliance which will cover the first six months of the current financial year. The report will tell us that more than 1½ million compliance reviews were carried out between July and December last year, over 171,000 people had their payments cancelled or reduced, 25 per cent more than in the same period the previous year. That means that we are saving $13 million a week on payments we do not have to make for the rest of this financial year. A total of 1,319 people were convicted in the courts for welfare fraud, and recovery of outstanding debts increased by over 31 per cent to $230 million during the first six months of 1997-98.In the 18 months to December 1997, the government has recovered more than $600 million in debts owed by people who have received more than their entitlement. That is about $1.1 million a day, a 76 per cent increase over the recovery rate during Labor's last 18 months. So much for their commitment to having solved the problem; so much for their proud boast that their compliance record was at the cutting edge of practice in that area.The Australian community strongly supports our efforts on two fronts. They want a decent safety net and they want the deserving of this community to be protected and looked after. But they have no stomach for fraud, they will not tolerate fraud, and they will support the efforts of my government to rule out fraud in the social security system and elsewhere.26242624Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Is the minister aware of the KPMG study prepared for the Australian Local Government Association which shows that, if a GST were to be paid on all local council rates and services as in New Zealand and at the New Zealand rate of 12½ per cent, this would lead to average council rate bills rising by $200 per year? Has the minister sought an assurance from the Treasurer that the government's proposed GST will not be applied to council ratepayers? Has he received such an assurance?2624Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The Treasurer, in his answer to the House a moment ago, pointed out that the government will not rule in or out anything that is in a tax reform package. Every person in local government and every part of the community has had an opportunity to consult with the tax reform task force on tax reform in this country, and nothing is being ruled in or being ruled out by the government.26242624Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the government should not pursue tax reform in the current economic environment? How on earth would preserving our current failed taxation system—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You need a bar for over there.AE4Mr NEHL—I could provide a vet for you if you won't see the psychiatrist. How on earth would preserving our current failed taxation system and delaying its reform—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will be silent. The member for Cowper has the floor. The member for Cowper will address his question.AE4Mr NEHL—Mr Speaker, I am trying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Then I suggest that the member for Banks permits him to do so.AE4Mr NEHL—Actually I have got a vet sitting right beside me—for immediate treatment.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He is inciting me!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would be a good idea if the member for Cowper addresses his question. Could I have some silence in the chamber, please.AE4Mr NEHL—Has the Treasurer seen reports that the government should not pursue tax reform in the current economic environment? How on earth would preserving our current failed taxation system and delaying its reform provide any assistance for Australian families and small business?2625Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper not only for his question but for his diagnosis of the member for Banks. A lot of us have thought about that for quite some time. We cannot understand why the ALP would want ordinary wage and salary earners to be paying $1 in $2 in income tax. We cannot understand why the Australian Labor Party would want to have effective marginal tax rates of 80 per cent and 90 per cent where people who go into the work force and earn extra money lose tax and benefits. We cannot understand why, after 13 years of failure, the do-nothing Beazley opposition would want to preserve the Australian taxation system. They have finally found a cause worth fighting for: the preservation of the current Australian taxation system. That is the cause that the Australian Labor Party want to fight for.I was rather taken aback by an interview by the reformist Leader of the Opposition this morning on the breakfast show with Phillip Clarke. He was asked why Labor is against tax reform. That is a very good question: why is Labor against tax reform?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Why? Yes, why are they?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Well, we don't really know, but this is the answer he came up with. This is why Labor is opposed to tax reform. He said this:As we go into a period with the Asian crisis which will eventually show up in our figures by the end of this year and which there is very great doubt over some of our major trading partners, to be actually throwing into the middle of that a tax bomb to detonate on all those areas a sense of confidence and security, that is not tax reform, it's stupidity.So the most recent answer to why the Labor Party is against tax reform is the Asian crisis—13 years of an Asian boom and that was a reason not to have tax reform; two years of an Asian crisis and that is another reason not to have tax reform. Thirteen years was the economy's booming. It cannot do it in the good times and it cannot do it in the bad times either. Wouldn't rationality say to you that, at a time when Australia has historic opportunities in the Asian area, where we have become the strong man of the region, where we have been part of the three financial packages, where we will have a budget going back and back and where we will be retiring debt, that would be the time to steal a march on the competition and reform the taxation system?But what does Labor say? Labor says, as this Leader of the Opposition always says, `Now is not the time. The Asian crisis is an excuse for doing nothing. The Asian boom was an excuse for doing nothing. This is the Beazley approach to life and government—an excuse for doing nothing. When the budget is in deficit, we shouldn't do anything. When debt is mounting up, we shouldn't do anything.' He is not a leader. He does not want to fix anything. He never thinks that the time is right. It was not the right time to balance the budget. It was not the right time to get unemployment down when he was employment minister. It is not the right time to engage in tax reform. It is not the right time to make the Australian economy the strong power of Asia. It is not the right time to do anything. This is a Leader of the Opposition who cannot lead. The truth of the matter is that he is a Leader of the Opposition who cannot lead.There is only one shadow minister on the Labor frontbench capable of leading, and it is the member for Werriwa. He knows it. All he has to do is make sure he gets in front of the queue; that he gets in between Simon and Cheryl, leaps over Cheryl and gets into a leadership position. What did he say about taxation? I say to the members of the Labor Party backbench, `Listen to your leader.' He said we should be taxing consumption. The Leader of the Opposition is going to go down to the Press Club tomorrow and launch the Labor Party manifesto written by the member for Werriwa—a manifesto that talks about how we have no unemployment problem, that talks about the economic dinosaurs not showing leadership, that talks about reforming the taxation system. The one thing I do not want the Leader of the Opposition to do tomorrow is to take the Ros Kelly endorsement: `I read the cover and not the book.' Before you go down to the Press Club tomorrow, you read the whole book and you support it, old son.26262626Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Silence, please, in the government ranks.VD4Mr GARETH EVANS—Will the Treasurer rule out the application of his proposed GST to rent? How can he justify not doing so when for many lower income families the major item of their consumption spending is the rent they pay on their housing?2626Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have already answered that question. We know the tricks; we have seen them all. We used to play them ourselves before budgets. Let me ask the Australian Labor Party this: will the Australian Labor Party rule out a 22 per cent tax on children's toys? Will it? Does the Australian Labor Party think that a 22 per cent tax on children's toys is fair when there is no tax on caviar? I do not think that is fair. Do you?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Will the Australian Labor Party rule out a 22 per cent tax on wheelbarrows when there is no tax on antiques? That is a fair point.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On the question of relevance: if it is not a trick question when the press asks him about health, why is it a trick question when I ask him about rent?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will remain relevant to the question asked of him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They are always trick questions from you. You are such a tricky fellow. We have to watch him carefully, he is so tricky. Why does the Australian Labor Party support a 22 per cent tax on razors but the Australian Labor Party does not support any tax on antique muffin dishes? I wonder whether there is a big demand for antique muffin dishes in the electorate of Holt. I will have to read my copy of The Gareth very carefully next week just to see. The fact of the matter is—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On the question of relevance again: even for someone as muddle-headed as the Treasurer, I do not think muffin dishes had much to do with rent. The question was about rent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not cast aspersions on others.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You have to remember one thing in the tax reform debate: this is a government of reform, this is one of the great reform governments of Australian history, and the Labor Party is a party of reaction.26262626Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House as to the ways in which the government has acted to reduce the level of Commonwealth government debt and how it will approach further debt reduction in the future?2626Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If members of the opposition remain silent, we will hear the answer. At the moment we cannot do that for the sound in the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honourable member for his question. No government in Australian history inherited a bigger debt burden than our government did when it was elected in March 1996. Mr Speaker, just to give you some facts on this, the Fraser government inherited—and I think it is important that the gallery understands this—a Commonwealth government debt from Whitlam of $1 billion or one per cent. In 1983, the Hawke Labor government inherited a Commonwealth government debt of $9 billion or six per cent of GDP. That is very high, isn't it? It was very high.In March 1996—and I ask you to bear in mind that figure of $9 billion or six per cent of GDP—after 13 years of Labor government, our government came to office inheriting a Commonwealth government debt of $96 billion or 20 per cent of GDP. The two years in which the Commonwealth government was at its profligate worst, it built up $23 billion. We have to bear in mind that the total debt when the Hawke government came to power was $9 billion. So, from Federation to 1983, the Commonwealth government had racked up $9 billion of debt. In the last two years of Keating government, the Labor Party racked up $23 billion. Who was the finance minister?The government has put Australia on this path. We have put Australia on a path, from our election in 1996 to the year 2001, to get Australia's general government debt down from $96 billion to $63 billion. If Mr Beazley had continued on his budget path, in the year 2001 it would have been $115 billion—$50 billion more. With the privatisation of Telstra, this government has the opportunity to repay down another $40 billion of debt and to return Australia's debt position to where it was before the Hawke-Keating Labor government came to office. We have this one-off opportunity by selling Telstra and paying down another $40 billion of debt to undo the damage of the Beazley Labor years. Wouldn't that be a great thing for future Australians? Future Australians would know that their taxes would go on their bridges and roads and hospitals and schools rather than servicing the debts of the Beazley-Keating Labor failure years. It would give future Australians the opportunity to break free from the shackles of debt, to get government debt down to $25 billion, back to five per cent of GDP—a historic opportunity.The only thing we would say about this, Mr Speaker, is as follows: if you were part of the problem, you would want to be part of the solution, wouldn't you? If you had been part of shackling Australia with that debt, where we have the one great means possible of bringing it back you would want to be supporting the government in bringing that debt down. It would be, I would think, thoroughly irrational to actually create the problem and then try to prevent the mechanism from curing it. That would be utterly irresponsible and utterly irrational. We say to the Leader of the Opposition this: it is not too late to join the government in this great historic cause. Why don't you get on board, and why don't you support a future for young Australians?26272627Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is again directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall being asked by Neil Mitchell on Melbourne radio on 16 February this year whether his proposed GST would extend to `things like food, health, education, power, that sort of thing' and replying, `Well you don't need it on all those things'? What did you mean when you said that? Which of these areas—food, health, education or power—will not have a GST applied to them? Will you rule out the application of your GST to anything?2627Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I have constantly mentioned, we are going to announce our package of tax reform measures—DT4CREANMr Crean—When?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will tell you this: we will release it long before you ever release a policy.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oooh!CT4Mr COSTELLO—`Oooh!' says Simon. He is rather worried by that. One of my colleagues has sent me a note saying we will reveal details on tax reform well before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ever apologises. Not true!We believe in reforming the Australian taxation system. What it is going to involve is this: it is going to involve in relation to indirect taxes a broad base and low rates; and, in relation to income taxes, opportunities for home buyers and wage and salary earners. For business it is going to mean an opportunity to make Australia internationally competitive.When tax reform is debated at the election there will be one party in favour of reform and one against it; there will be one party that believes in creating opportunities for young Australians and one against it; there will be one party that wants to make a better tax system and one party committed to preserving the current unfair, unjust tax system—and that is the party of reaction: the Australian Labor Party.26282628Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to the government's new Job Network program to operate from 1 May. Is the minister aware of statements regarding the denial of access to free employment services for job seekers? What guarantees can the minister give that this access will in fact be available?2628Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. The government is improving free employment services for all job seekers. From 1 May the Job Network will come into existence, offering greatly improved chances to unemployed people to get a real job. That simply confirms that this government is one of the great reforming governments that this country has had and there is not a single constructive policy idea on the other side of the House.After question time yesterday the member for Batman rushed out of the House to issue a media release which shows that the member for Batman is reliable on two counts: he always gets it wrong, and he is increasingly embarrassing to his own side of politics. First of all, what he claimed in this press release was there would not be free employment services available to unemployed people. In fact, there will be improved free employment services available for unemployed people. Secondly, he released a commercial-in-confidence document from the CES indicating that the CES would be charging fees to employers for certain extra services. He said that this was a terrible thing and that this was happening showed how shocking the government was.Once again, the member for Batman failed to do his research, he failed to check the facts. Members of this House may be asking themselves when this terrible policy was introduced. It was introduced in 1989 by the previous Labor government. It was the very policy that was in force when the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister. It was the very policy in force when Simon Crean was the employment minister.The member for Batman has done it again. It is another shiny plaque up there on the wall. It is another policy unveiled by Labor that he does not like. What he is showing is that Labor is not even satisfied with the policies it took to the election in 1996; it wants to go back, right back into the past. That is not surprising because the member for Batman is an ex-leader of the ACTU. There is a very good quote that I read the other day that applies to this very problem and explains why it occurs. This is worth listening to; it is a very thoughtful quote:Whereas in its origins unionism was a force for economic change and progress, it has now fallen into the habit of opposing change in its contribution to most issues.K26LATHAMMr Latham—That is quite right.BT4Dr KEMP—It is a very accurate statement. It goes on:In Australia there is little evidence to suggest that the leadership of the union movement—that would be the member for Batman and the member for Hotham—has adapted successfully to the demands of the new economy.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Who said that?BT4Dr KEMP—Who said this? It was Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa. He went on to say that `this narrow base of unionism, which the Labor Party relies on, is threatening the relevance of the Labor Party and its very survival. And he is right again. He is out to get the policy dinosaurs up here, the Creanosaurus and the Ferguraptor. They are all here; they are prowling around. He has got his gun out to get these policy dinosaurs. Who is launching this wonderful book tomorrow? It is the Leader of the Opposition. And who is he going to support? Is he going to be supporting the member for Werriwa or is he going to be supporting the member for Batman? It is a difficult choice to make—and he will not make a choice because he is weak, because he cannot, because his party is coming to pieces behind him on his front bench and he cannot take a single action to bring that party together.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question asked of him.BT4Dr KEMP—He is leading the party into irrelevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. You must know that I am supporting Mr Bradford tonight—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That was not a point of order. Minister, have you finished your answer?BT4Dr KEMP—Yes.26292629Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when Senator Parer proposed the abolition—Government members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—Ah! They do not like Senator Parer, the $2 million coal minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will direct his question. Members of the government will remain silent.DT4Mr CREAN—When Senator Parer proposed the abolition of the $21 million ethanol bounty in 1996, did he pass on to you the views of the member for Gilmore, who wrote to him on 13 August 1996 in support of the bounty in the following terms:There are too many arguments against what you are proposing for it to be politically or morally acceptable . . . The least we can do is to honour the agreements of the previous government . . . I have already had discussions about credibility with the Prime Minister and he assured me that he was determined to keep it as the benchmark of his administration.What a cackler!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member will direct his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Prime Minister, why did you ignore the member for Gilmore and allow the minister for coal to abolish the ethanol bounty?2629Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The abolition of that bounty was a budget cabinet decision. It is one of the decisions which contributed to making Australia now the economic strongman of the Asia-Pacific region. I appreciate the fact that the member for Hotham has asked me about the 1996 budget because the 1996 budget was the first budget with which we addressed Mr Beazley's $10.5 billion deficit.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is entirely relevant. The member for Hotham has a point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—This was a specific question about one decision—the ethanol bounty—and the fact that his own backbencher was up in arms about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. You asked a broad question which was very long and you referred to correspondence. The Prime Minister is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are not up in arms about the fact that once more this country is heading back into the black; the Australian people are not up in arms about the fact that we have a government that is prepared to reduce debt; the Australian people are not up in arms about the fact that, in the two years that my government has been in power, we have delivered the lowest housing interest rates for more than 30 years; the small businessmen and women of Gilmore are not up in arms about the fact that, as a result of my government's policies, small business overdraft rates are now heading to their lowest levels for over 30 years; they are not up in arms about the fact that in 1990 overdraft rates for small business went to 20½ per cent under the Beazley-Keating government—they are now heading to levels of 7.2 per cent; they are not up in arms about the capital gains tax rollover relief that we provided.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What about what Parer did?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio!WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Parer's tax.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that the decisions that were taken by my government in the 1996 budget have laid the foundation for this country having the strongest economic fundamentals for more than a quarter of a century. Those decisions have meant that my government has been able to give Australia the economic leadership to withstand the economic turmoil of the Asia-Pacific region. My government's policies have meant that, far from Australia being in a mendicant, pleading position in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia—along with Japan—has been one of only two countries that has been strong enough and committed enough to participate in the three IMF bailouts of Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.I am proud of the economic decisions that my government has taken. I am proud of the 1996 budget because that 1996 budget laid the foundations for that great economic strength that is now working to the benefit of the men and women of Australia. Those opposite can cavil. Those opposite created the horrendous debt problem that we inherited. They not only created the problem but did their level best to my government curing the problem. I am glad to say that my government has had the courage to tackle the problem, and I have little doubt that all the muckraking and carping of the opposition will not disguise the fact that the Australian people are grateful that they now have a government that has been prepared to address the economic foundations of Australia and to give us the strongest economic fundamentals for more than 25 years. I welcome questions about the 1996 budget from the member for Hotham.DT4CREANMr Crean—Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the question, I seek leave to table the letter from the member for Gilmore.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will stop that introduction. You have no point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—I am seeking leave to table—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, but you do not start with a peroration. Raise your point of order, please. I warn the honourable member for Hotham. If you have a point of order, pursue it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent. The member for Hotham has the call.DT4CREANMr Crean—I seek leave to table the letter from the member for Gilmore criticising the decision to abolish the ethanol bounty.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.Distinguished Visitors263010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would like, on behalf of members of the House, to extend a welcome to a parliamentary delegation from Kiribati. I trust you enjoy your visit to Australia. I see that the class from the Joint Services Staff College are about to exit the visitors gallery. Welcome to the Australian parliament.Questions Without Notice263026302630Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of contradictory comments in the past week on the advantages to Australia of a highly skilled migration program? Could the minister advise the House whether arguments to cut skilled migration are supported by research?2630Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for giving me an opportunity to speak about some aspects of the skilled migration program. I think it is very important to recognise that each year we have a large number of departures from Australia—something of the order of 30,000 people—and 66 per cent of those in the work force who leave Australia were highly skilled. If you look at the skills transfer out of Australia, particularly well-trained young Australians able to work in the global economy, it is obviously a significant deficit.We endeavour to make up for that in a number of ways, particularly through the training programs that we have in place and which my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs frequently speaks about in this place. But we also know that there are lags in relation to that, and research has shown that skilled migrants do have a very positive impact upon the economy, the budget and government finances. We know that independent migrants achieve unemployment rates close to the Australian average around about 18 months after arrival in Australia. Of course, these are the very reasons we have moved to shift the balance in the program so that skilled migration is 50 per cent, and that has led to a reduction in the family reunion program, where primarily unskilled entrants are entering Australia. It is also the reason that we raised the skill, age and English language requirements for such migrants. These are the attributes that ensure the employability of independent migrants.The honourable member asks me about comments on these matters. Let me say that there have been a number of comments over time in relation to the importance of skilled migration. I note particularly the comments of three Labor ministers for immigration. Senator Ray had this to say:These economic migrants, through skills, capital and expertise they bring, actually create more jobs than they take and make a very positive contribution to the economic development . . . Gerry Hand, when he was minister, said:The points test is designed to enable us to choose young, highly skilled migrants capable of making immediate contributions to Australia's economy after arrival.Senator Bolkus said:A greater focus on independent migrants would contribute to Australia's skill and resource base.I would like to contrast that with the comments we hear from scaremongers like the honourable member for Batman, who happens to say that skilled workers coming from overseas take jobs that ought to be filled by Australians. Of course, he is the one who wants to cut back skilled migration so that we can bring in unskilled migrants with high welfare dependency and little chance of getting a job. I think it also ought to be contrasted with the comments of the honourable member for Werriwa, the young and the restless.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Who is next?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—You might like to hear them. The honourable member for Werriwa has this to say, and I think it is very pertinent to be able to focus on those comments:The primary test for migration entry needs to be cast around the knowledge based skills of prospective residents. Australia's recent experience, particularly through the large family reunion program of the 1980s, has shown that poorly skilled migrants are unlikely to avoid the problems of economic exclusion and welfare dependency.I could not have said it better myself. He went on to say:Migration policies such as these, which perversely enough in the public arena are often cast in the name of social justice, simply add to the extent of the underclass neighbourhoods in Australia's major cities. In the new labour market there are virtually no jobs available for unskilled migrants.He went on to say:The ALP needs to fundamentally alter its thinking on immigration.I have to say, in relation to those comments from the honourable member for Werriwa, amen.26312631Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—Can the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts inform the House for how long Telstra will retain its monopoly of selling lines to its Internet access provider competitors?2631Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Actually, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will endeavour to find out.26312631Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, Australia today faces its 37th day of industrial action on the waterfront with the start of another seven-day strike in Port Botany by the Maritime Union of Australia. Could you advise the House of the origins of this industrial action and of the need for reform of the waterfront in light of this action?2632Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Page for his question. The origins of this waterfront dispute lie in the inefficiencies, the lack of productivity and the lack of reliability on the Australian waterfront. They lie in the consistent refusal of the MUA to acknowledge the need for competition and the right of other businesses to establish businesses on the waterfront and provide a more efficient service. They also lie in the view of the MUA that they are entitled to a monopoly on the Australian waterfront, to featherbed and protect their own members at the expense of the rest of the Australian community.As an example of this, in the management of most Australian businesses—in fact, I would say, virtually any Australian business—the proprietors would be entitled to contract out some aspects of their business. For example, in the parliament here, cleaning services can be contracted out. In many businesses, if you need an information technology expert, you might contract information type technology skills into the business.On the Australian waterfront, the managers of those business have been barred by the MUA from bringing in contractors so that they can make more efficient their operations. For example, the Patrick company at its Webb Dock facility has been forced by the union to use MUA labour for the maintenance of their equipment at Webb Dock. Of course, since the farmers have taken over, they have been able to exercise the right that any other company would have, that is, to be able to contract out maintenance of their equipment at Webb Dock.It is very interesting to see the difference in the costs between Patrick's operation for maintenance run by the MUA, which was up to $3 million a year, and the same work contracted out, which the farmers have been able to achieve for $400,000 a year—a saving in the order of $2½ million a year. And who is paying for that? It is the average consumer. We are losing jobs in Australia because of the inefficiency of that particular operation. It is these sorts of practices on the Australian waterfront—being run by the MUA just to prop up its monopoly—which is really what this dispute is all about.I conclude by saying that I was very interested in some remarks this morning about the prospects of change on the Australian waterfront. On radio this morning, the Leader of the Opposition said, `Peter Reith is going to come out with some magnificent figures when we have reformed the waterfront.' I hope that his prediction is right—that, when we have significant reform, we will see a very big jump in productivity numbers.I was also very taken by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition because normally what the opposition say is that, if they had won the 1996 election, in their 14th year they would have fixed it up. That is their normal line. But today we have a variation on this. The variation on this is that in October last year the opposition was on the cusp of fixing the waterfront. The Leader of the Opposition made this incredible statement on radio this morning. He said:Look you know, our spokesman on Transport, Lindsay Tanner, came to me last October and said, `Look, we've been sitting down and talking to the Maritime Union. We think that they are going to arrive at agreements which gives the container rates that everyone has been demanding of them through the enterprise arrangements over the course of the next six months.They did nothing for years; in fact, if you back to the WIRA process, they spent $430 million and got nothing for it in terms of productivity. And now he is making the ridiculous claim that they nearly fixed it from opposition only last October. This Leader of the Opposition is the most pathetic, the most weak and the most absurd Leader of the Opposition that we have had postwar. He deserves his fate. He is bound hand and foot to the MUA.26322632Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the continuing crisis in public hospitals and the 1996 budget that the Prime Minister was just bragging about. Does the Prime Minister recall tabling a graph in question time yesterday? Prime Minister, doesn't your own graph show that your 1996 budget was the first time since 1992 that the Commonwealth government actually cut hospital funding to the states? Doesn't your own graph show that hospital funding went up in 1993 under Labor, up in 1994 under Labor, up in 1995 under Labor, but went down in 1996 under the Howard government? Prime Minister, haven't the states dismissed your phoney hospital funding offer because they have judged you by your actions and not your dishonest claims?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will withdraw that remark—dishonest. There is no need to persist with that.2633Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I did table that graph, and I might just show my colleagues how it keeps going up, and the important thing is that it keeps going up again. From 1996-97 and 1997-98, it actually goes up quite sharply. The reality is that my government has made a funding offer to the states.The member for Dobell asked me a question about the respective performances of the Labor Commonwealth government, of which he was a member, and my government. I am very pleased that the member for Dobell was able to ask me that because, under the Beazley forward estimates in relation to hospitals, in the five-year agreement that we have offered the states the Commonwealth would have spent $27.3 billion. What we are proposing to spend is $30.3 billion. In other words, the government that is being accused of cutting money is in fact the government that is proposing to spend $2.9 billion more than what the opposition on its own figures would have spent if it had continued in government. If the Labor Party had been returned, in its now quite famous 14th year it would have proposed a hospital arrangement that was far less generous than the one that has been proposed by my government.The truth of the matter is that, under my government, the hospital agreement offered to the states is a fair one. It is a generous one. It is a reasonable one. It is $2.9 billion more than the Labor Party would have offered. It represents a three per cent real increase every year for a period of five years. It is an offer that remains on the table. We will meet it in full, without deduction, on time, to the full and last dollar, and I think it is an offer that the states should accept.26332633Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. Is the minister aware of any reports indicating that funding for aged care and disability services has been cut? Can the minister advise the House of the expenditure on these items in 1995-96 and in the present financial year? Has the expenditure gone up or down, and by how much?2633Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I thank the member for Stirling for his question. Indeed, I have seen reports about relevant funding levels for aged care and disability services and, as I stated in a statement on 2 April, they are absolutely incorrect. I might start by responding to the member for Stirling about the issue of disability funding, because he, along with several other members representing Western Australia—and indeed members from both sides of the House—have approached me in relation to the disability issue, particularly with regard to the Commonwealth-state disability agreement and the offer that I made to the states recently on behalf of the government.The first thing that should be understood is that the cost of providing disability services across the nation is shared between the states and the Commonwealth—80 per cent by the states and 20 per cent by the Commonwealth. The offer that I made on behalf of the government was a substantial one, and it saw a five per cent increase, on average, across each year of the proposed five-year agreement. I am pleased to say that Western Australia, which was a vociferous critic of the earlier proposals, signed the agreement yesterday, and other states and territories look as though they will sign; indeed, one other has already signed and the others will sign.The reason that they are signing is that they recognise that the establishment of a new maintenance level to address the issue of disability services is absolutely vital in this country. Comparing the level of outlays under Labor as against the new agreement, the outlays in accommodation and employment services have actually gone up, as I detailed in that 2 April press release. The amount in 1995-96 under the Labor government was $507 million; what is proposed in the 1997-98 period is $556 million, an increase of 9.7 per cent. Graphically, it looks like this. This graph shows you what we have done, and we are talking about actual outlays. We are not trying to play games with forward estimates, as the shadow spokesman for the Labor Party is trying to do. We are talking about actual outlays; we are talking about a consistent effort in the very key area of disability services.As I said in the House late last week, the additional support provided in the ground-breaking staying at home package sees an additional $15 million focused upon the needs of elderly Australians who are caring for mature-aged children with disabilities. That has also been recognised by the states as being essential and, in totality with the earlier offer that I made, has led to the view that the states and the territories will sign. I am also hopeful that New South Wales will participate in a constructive way in making sure that the whole nation addresses needs for disability services in a purposeful manner over the next five years.I might also mention the other point that the honourable member made about aged care and the actual levels of outlays in this particular program. It should be understood that the level of outlays for residential care for the 137,000-odd Australians who are in nursing homes and hostels is about $2.7 billion in the 1997-98 period. That is an increase of 14.4 per cent on what the Labor Party provided in 1995-96.The next area of effort from the Commonwealth is the home and community care program, which has been in place for some considerable time and is also a shared program with the states. Just short of $1 billion under the five-year agreement between the states and the Commonwealth is provided for home and community care. The outlay that we are making in 1997-98 is $476 million, which is an increase of 12.5 per cent on what Labor outlaid in 1995-96. That does not take into account the third level of effort that we are making in a direct payment, and that is the staying at home package, which is a $270 million effort over four years to address the fundamental needs of older Australians.When you look at those figures, this is what it looks like in graph form. This is our effort.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will wind up his answer.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—These press releases coming from the Labor Party are playing games with figures, they are playing games with people's lives, they are politically inspired and they are not addressing need. We are addressing need. I know you don't want to hear—you were the finance minister! That was your effort.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his answer.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—That is what the Labor Party did. You took it backwards! You have done nothing, you don't care, and you are just politically inspired.26342634Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I have to say that I appreciate the fact that the honourable member thinks I am politically inspired. I think I'm quite good, too. My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a document entitled `The Youth Allowance Media Strategy' prepared by the Department of Social Security admits that there is `vocal opposition to the youth allowance from churches, welfare and youth groups and families who will be affected by the measure'? I might also say that the document suggests spending public funds on counteracting Jenny Macklin. How does the Prime Minister explain his comment in question time on 26 March that the youth allowance was `a policy that has been very widely applauded'? Just how much is the government spending on its media strategy to sell the youth allowance to the thousands of poor families who are going to lose up to $87 a week in unemployment benefits after 1 July?Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Jagajaga will remain silent.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Jagajaga.2635Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition asked me how much I am going to spend on it. Perhaps I can answer that by saying Bill Hunter. Everybody around this building will know exactly what I mean when I say Bill Hunter. For the Leader of the Opposition to have the nerve to ask me about legitimate expenditure of government money on explaining a new program after he ran Bill Hunter like crazy before the last election—you have to be joking!Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect has already been warned. I suggest you remain silent.26352635Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It appears, thankfully, that after nine years of war the situation on the island of Bougainville is improving. Could the minister inform the House of the state of play in the Bougainville peace process, what role Australia has played in the process to date and whether Australia will continue its commitment to Bougainville through the proposed peace monitoring group from 1 May.2635Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question and his continuing interest in foreign affairs matters broadly and the very difficult and fraught issue of conflict on Bougainville. I think this government could go so far as saying that it is justifiably proud of the role that it has played in trying to bring peace to Bougainville. If it had not been for the extensive and enthusiastic work done by the Australian government, I do not think we would be as far down the track towards peace on Bougainville as we are. Of course, it would not be appropriate to indulge in too much triumphalism about this because there is a long way to go yet. I know that the negotiations are going to continue to be difficult. It is really a matter that is going to require a great deal of patience and careful consideration.The honourable member for Groom might be interested to know that yesterday I had the opportunity, as did my colleague the Minister for Defence, to meet with the Papua New Guinea foreign minister, Mr Roy Yaki. Our discussions were wide ranging, but in particular it was an opportunity to talk about the situation in Bougainville.Mr Yaki made a personal visit to Australia in order to convey an invitation from Prime Minister Bill Skate to our own Prime Minister inviting Australia to participate in what is to be called the peace monitoring group for Bougainville. It is going to replace the truce monitoring group after the cease-fire signing at the end of this month. While some of the details of the peace monitoring group have yet to be worked out, let me say that the Australian government in principle would be very happy to participate in the peace monitoring group.Mr Yaki and I both agreed during our discussions yesterday that tremendous progress had been achieved so far on Bougainville since the first tentative steps began in Honiara in June of last year. The cease-fire arrangement is almost certainly going to be signed in Arawa on Bougainville towards the end of this month. The final date is yet to be determined, but it certainly will be before the end of this month. I very much hope to be present for the signing, given the role that Australia has played in helping to facilitate this whole process.I know the member for Groom will also be interested to know that the Australian government is very much of the view that the people of Bougainville must receive a peace dividend out of these peace negotiations. If they receive a peace dividend, they will understand only too well the clear benefits of peace over the conflict that has besieged the island over the last 10 years.We as a government have made a commitment of $130 million to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Bougainville. This peace dividend is being delivered through the Bougainville rehabilitation project, and it is helping to return life to normal through the construction of schools, health posts, roads and bridges. Australia is also planning to assist with the restoration of civil authority on Bougainville, particularly through the establishment of an auxiliary police force and strengthening of a village court system. That is a very important step in the peace process.I know all members of the House will welcome the role that the Australian government has been playing in this. As I said at the beginning, it is going to be a difficult path ahead. We have no illusions about that. We have no illusions about the risks involved in this peace process. We have an obligation to give facilitation of peace on Bougainville a very high priority, and I am glad that we are doing it.26362636Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Is the minister aware of the widespread confusion and anger in the community among older Australians who believe the minister promised them free influenza vaccinations last Friday? Minister, did you promise that flu vaccines would be free to all older Australians? If you did make that promise, why are people across Australia still being forced to pay for their flu vaccine, which you promised would be free?2636Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—It is very nice to get a question from the shadow minister for health. It is obviously Tuesday; it is his day to ask a question.Opposition members interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I will answer them when I am given them, but the only way I can get a question in this place is to get my own side to ask me one. I have here a copy of my press release of the time, which, in fact, does not say at all that the flu vaccine would be free. It says that the flu vaccine is subsidised by the government. I am happy to table that. I was asked by a Victorian media outlet what the situation was for the purposes of Victoria, and in Victoria it was free, so I answered correctly. What you are doing is being a little pedant. For a person who confused a cholesterol lowering drug with a sugar pill, I would not be too proud of yourself.26362636Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, who is aware of my interest in the need for truth in labelling. I would like to know what action the federal government is taking to address the concerns of Australian producers about the confusion surrounding the correct labelling of those products which are labelled `Made in Australia'?2636Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank the member for Mallee for his question. I particularly acknowledge his untiring efforts on behalf of citrus growers and other producers in his own electorate who have been concerned for some time about Brazilian concentrate being converted into citrus juice in Australia and then being labelled `Made in Australia'.The good news for the honourable member for Mallee—indeed, for the whole parliament—is that tomorrow I will be introducing legislation into this place to institute honesty and a genuine level of understanding of what is meant by `country of origin labelling claims' in this country. I think all Australians—all consumers, all manufacturers, all producers—will be grateful to have this matter once and for all resolved.Under the arrangements that will be introduced in the legislation tomorrow, the description `Made in Australia' will be restricted to items that are substantially transformed in this country; they are made into a significantly different product here, and the majority of their cost of production is incurred in this country. The description `product of Australia' will be reserved for items that are 100 per cent Australian, or as near to it as possible. These two descriptions, these amendments to the Trade Practices Act, will sweep away the confusion that has been built up by misleading practices, by a range of confusing court decisions that have left manufacturers uncertain as to what descriptions they can use, and consumers not confident that when they buy something claiming to be Australian it is indeed Australian.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Well, why did you drop support for the `Australian made' campaign?GT4Mr TRUSS—I take the interjection from the member for Brisbane, because one of the other major benefits from this legislation will be to reinvigorate the `Australian made' logo. The green and gold kangaroos `Australian made' logo will again have the protection that it will need. That logo will be revitalised so that industry will be able to use it with the knowledge that it will not be subject to legal challenge and goods they claim to be `Australian made' are indeed products of this country.We have waited a long time. The opposition have been very noisy about this; they have given plenty of advice from the sidelines. Now they will have their opportunity to support this legislation which, once and for all, will sweep away the nonsense of Brazilian concentrate being called Australian citrus juice, or Canadian pork being called Australian ham. It will allow Holden cars to be called Australian; it will allow Australian peanut butter and Australian fruit from the honourable member's electorate to be called Australian. But it will not allow the cheating and the practices that have been going on for years to continue.26372637Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I hope the money is going back into the `Australian made' campaign.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will ask his question.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, is it not true that your office confirmed yesterday that jobsearch firms—private, community and government owned—could charge fees as they see fit? Can you confirm media reports that Employment National may double-dip, charging fees to both the federal government and businesses for placing the same person who has been on unemployment benefits into a job? Do you condone this profit making gambit by Employment National—or by any other job agency set up to operate in the new employment market, be it government, private or community sector?2637Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is hard to believe that they are still prepared to put him up here; after the literary comet strike from the member for Werriwa the other day, some of the dinosaurs are still prowling around.The question that the member for Batman asked was, in fact, comprehensively answered some months ago now by the Prime Minister when he tabled the press release from Employment National. If the member for Batman was as keen in doing research as is the member for Werriwa, he would undoubtedly have realised that this information is already public information. Employment National has said that it will pursue a non-discriminatory charging policy. It is a commercial operation; it is entitled to pursue commercial policies. It will charge employers on a non-discriminatory basis, whether or not that person is on unemployment benefits.Let me make it absolutely clear that the contracts which the government has written with all the members of the Job Network prohibit members of the Job Network from charging fees to any eligible job seeker; that the only fees that are available to be charged are fees to employers. That was, of course, the policy established by the previous government for the CES. It was the policy pursued by the Leader of the Opposition. It was the policy pursued by the member for Hotham. It is the policy—DT4CREANMr Crean—No! We dropped it, and you know it!BT4Dr KEMP—What! You introduced it and you dropped it?Mr Crean interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Hotham has just admitted that their policy for the CES was a total failure. They are going from bad to worse. A journalist came into my office today and said, about the member for Batman, `Look, which side is he on; which side of the parliament is he on?' Every time he asks something, he is a crashing embarrassment to the Labor Party—and the member for Hotham, out of sheer loyalty, has just joined him in being an embarrassment to the Labor Party— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will address the question put to him.BT4Dr KEMP—by now denouncing the policy of the Labor Party. Mr Speaker, they are very sensitive on this point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Yes, Mr Speaker. This government is one of the great reforming governments that this country has had. We are determined to improve services to unemployed people. Our obligation is to help all the people who were abandoned by the Labor Party when they were in government.It was the Labor Party that pushed unemployment up to over a million. It is this government that has got unemployment down to its lowest level for seven years. We now have fewer teenagers looking for full-time work than at any time in the last eight years. You would think every person in this House would be delighted to hear that news. It is only those grim, unsmiling faces on the other side of the House that tell you that the Labor Party—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will address the question.BT4Dr KEMP—has run out of ideas.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw his answer to an end.BT4Dr KEMP—All that is left is the Creanasauras, the Ferguraptor and the author of the literary comet strike of the century, who is determined to get rid of them once and for all.26382638Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Has the minister seen reports about the emerging drought situation in New South Wales and, in particular, suggestions that the federal government is not providing assistance? Can the minister outline what assistance is available to farmers experiencing severe drought, such as those in the Monaro region of my electorate? How does this contrast with assistance provided by other governments?2638Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that it is of real concern not just to the member for Eden Monaro—anyone who has been in this area recently will know just how terrible the country looks—but also to people right across southern and eastern Australia as very real drought appears to be descending yet again. Many farmers could and would be excused for feeling pretty demoralised at the moment. We have a real impact on many commodity prices arising out of what is happening in Asia and now, unfortunately, it looks as though a very real drought situation is appearing again.Unfortunately, it also has to be said that a somewhat less than accurate article in today's Daily Telegraph would leave farmers even more demoralised because it implies that they are left without aid. That is the intent of the headline. I want to say that the article is quite simply wrong so far as the Commonwealth government is concerned. The fact of the matter is that for exceptional circumstances the government not only maintains substantial business and income support but also has ensured that under revised guidelines more people receive more assistance than were ever able to under guidelines that applied before we came into government. In fact, since we came to power, something now approaching $300 million over and above what was on the forward estimates two years ago has been provided—YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Are you wearing your school uniform?4K4Mr ANDERSON—for business and family income support under the drought exceptional circumstances arrangements.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Have you got your college tie on?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs will remain silent.4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is an interesting indication of how much concern is felt for rural people by those opposite, is it not?Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Hunter purports to be interested in the fortunes of rural people. His area is drought affected and he does not want to hear the answer. He does not want the record set straight so that far mers know what they are entitled to. There is the mark of your concern for rural people. May it be well recorded in the seat of Hunter that you do not give a damn about them.The fact of the matter is that we have doubled the recovery period for people in drought exceptional circumstances. Not only that; it is fair to point out that there are many now receiving drought exceptional circumstances. In fact, on the very page of the Telegraph that featured this article there was a farmer from the region of the member who asked the question who is in an area now where farmers can access assistance, the very lie given to the headlines in the paper.Over and above drought exceptional circumstances we have provided a range of assistance measures under the Agriculture Advancing Australia program—for example, recognising that tragically some farming families have been so badly damaged by drought in recent years that they need ongoing help, and they can have it under the farm family restart program. This has never been made available before—a very substantial package. There are already about 500 to 600 farmers on it. It has only been going for a couple of months.Regrettably, a spokesman for the New South Wales Farmers Association in the article is quoted as referring to a 1992 agreement and indicates that the Commonwealth has not delivered. We have delivered. We have delivered in spadefuls on all of the things that they said they wanted: tax changes in the farm management deposits, exceptional circumstances arrangements. We have doubled landcare. We have added Agriculture Advancing Australia. Here is the opposition spokesman. Why does he not go out there and reassure farmers that he is committed to waterfront reform—something every farmer I have met wants, and you will not confirm your support for it. That is just one instance of your lack of concern.It is important to note that we have delivered and that the remarks of the New South Wales farmers spokesman, unfortunately, appear to allow the Carr government off the hook. It implies that it was legitimate for them to withdraw support for farmers. We do not disagree with the policy thrust of what they did, but for the New South Wales Government to pull the pin on the modest drought support that it has been delivering in the face of a very severe drought again confirms farmers' decisions about that state government. The bottom line is that Mr Amery, the New South Wales minister, ought to go back to the New South Wales Premier and tell him to reverse his decision. Because what they have done shows, firstly, how much the New South Wales government does not care about farmers and, secondly, contrasts in a very real way with a very substantial policy approach that we have adopted.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Have you got any support from the industry?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Let me close by saying that it is my sincere hope that the Telegraph tomorrow—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—What have you done to assist—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Hunter.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I hope the Telegraph tomorrow will seek to publish an accurate story on what this government has delivered for farmers in and out of drought. It will make a much longer story than the one we got today.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations263915:22:002639Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation on two matters.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, grossly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The first relates to a question answered by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) during which he took a particular quote out of context. He said firstly that we were opposed to tax reform and that tax reform would impact. Let me read the quote.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would you sit down, please, according to the standing orders?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please sit down.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—You know the rules.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will address his point of order to me. Members of the opposition will remain silent. I will address whatever remarks need to be made.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 461 of House of Representatives Practice . It states:A personal explanation may be made in the House regarding events in the Main Committee . . . But it cannot be made in terms of party matters; it can only be made in terms of—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you have another point of order?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I refer you to the Hansard in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has just referred to `we'. He can only make a personal explanation for himself. What is more, if he thinks he is `we' that is the royal prerogative—and maybe that is what he believes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. At this stage, the Leader of the Opposition is entirely within standing orders. He is making a personal explanation on matters in which he has personally been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition will now explain where he has be misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will now read the quote that was at the centre of that misrepresentation. My answer was this to a particular question on the GST:Well, look, it's like the dance of the seven veils except he's reluctant to remove the first. If you recollect what John Howard had to say at the beginning of last year, or early last year, `Well, I'm taking you on a tax adventure. And you'll know all about our plans on this shortly.' Well, shortly everybody interpreted at least by Christmas. You know, you generally get everything by Christmas.We generally get everything from this government by Christmas, but we did not get that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will direct his remarks to where he has been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Then I went on to the point about tax reform. I said this:. . . it must be between then, and Peter Costello saying, `Well, we'll have a policy out a couple of weeks before it.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, he is hopeless.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent, including the member for Hotham!3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—My understanding was that a personal explanation was not to be an opportunity to reventilate aspects of a debate which a member lost.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition needs to direct his remarks specifically to where he has been misrepresented and not make a speech.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am actually reading the answer that I gave. I later went on to say this:We believe—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is a long established precedent and convention as to how these matters are to be done. Many a time we have heard the Leader of the Opposition object to long and wordy personal explanations. He is, as is quite clear from his refusal to bring his explanation to a tidy close, simply now going on to repeat some words he has given somewhere else. What he has to do is state where he has been misrepresented—and he has already done so—and that is all he is entitled to do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is stretching the bounds of personal explanations. I suggest he points out specifically the two places where he has been misrepresented and conclude his remarks.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You will recollect that the Treasurer alleged that I had said that we were opposed to tax reform. You will recollect that from it.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Oh, no, no, no. I never said that.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is exactly what he said.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not what I recollect at all. Your personal explanation must be where you have been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Okay, I said this:CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—No, no, no.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are you raising a point of order?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—My point of order is that he is now making an allegation that is not made. I read his own transcript.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent!CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—No, I read his own transcript and I seek leave to table it.WI4REITHMr Reith—You don't need leave, you can just table it.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—I table it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. At the moment I have no idea what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He is seeking to make a personal explanation and I believe it would be appropriate to allow him to do so.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will cease my personal explanation on that matter and go to the second. We will leave that point now that the government accepts that we are talking about tax reform and we will go on to the second one.Mr Costello interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Treasurer, do you have a point of order?Mr Costello interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer cannot rise unless he is taking a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Sit down. We will go to the second, in which the minister at the table suggested that we suggested that I suggested that we were reforming the waterfront from opposition. So let me go to that quote.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must direct his remarks to where he has been misrepresented. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is misrepresenting me because I never said any such thing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Right, the Leader of the Opposition has concluded his personal explanation.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, I have not. I am entitled, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You said you have never said it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am entitled in an explanation to quote accurately. Every personal explanation that has been permitted in this place is allowed, when there has been a quote that has been inaccurately used, to respond to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will pursue his personal explanation, but do it expeditiously.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will do it expeditiously. I go to the quote that was used by you in your perorations here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It was not used by me, and you should be addressing your remarks through the chair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I said this:Look, our spokesman on transport, Lindsay Tanner, came to me last October—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The standing orders say that it is the responsibility of a member making a personal explanation to identify where they have been misrepresented and to deny it if they choose—nothing more.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am endeavouring to get the Leader of the Opposition to identify where he has been personally misrepresented and to conclude his remarks. Where have you been personally misrepresented? Please proceed with your personal explanation.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have been personally misrepresented where he claims that the opposition claimed that from opposition—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not the opposition; it is your claim.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That from opposition we reformed the waterfront.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, it is your claim.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, it was his.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It has to be you personally, not the opposition.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is a very simple and obvious one—that is, that the Leader of the Opposition has to show where he has been personally misrepresented. But he has failed to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I agree with the Leader of the House. We will endeavour to get the Leader of the Opposition to identify where he has been personally misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—He claims that this quote indicates that the opposition says—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, it is you.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is us. He claims that we are reforming the waterfront from opposition—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You personally, not the opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Okay, I personally have said that. We think that they are going to arrive at agreements which give the container rights everybody has been demanding of them through enterprise agreements over the course of the next six months. This is something that is going to be very hard for us to handle because we know that it is related to the enterprise bargaining process that we put in place, and nobody will believe that.So for virtually no effort at all Peter Reith is going to come out with some magnificent figures. What happened then is that instead of actually pushing it through, keeping the pressure on and getting the outcomes, they decided to go nuts with all sorts of praised propositions. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a clear case of where the Leader of the Opposition has abused the forms of the House. He well knows that his personal explanation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He has now concluded his personal explanation.WI4REITHMr Reith—To make my point of order though, Mr Speaker: the Leader of the Opposition is a constant violator of the standing orders. He constantly takes licence with his position as Leader of the Opposition, and this is another case.15:31:002642Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. In this morning's Australian , Professor Malcolm Mackerras presented a new electoral pendulum. He stated that it was necessary because the old one was inaccurate. I would like to point out to the House that while I have been misrepresented, it is not terminal, but the seat of La Trobe is not located on the pendulum and McEwen exists twice.15:31:002642Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you claim to have been personally misrepresented?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—In this House last Thursday in debate on the Vodafone disallowance motion the members for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) and Hinkler (Mr Neville) alleged that I had failed until then to raise concerns about the analog phone service by not taking part in the telecommunications bill debate last year. The member for North Sydney has graciously acknowledged his mistake and confirmed that I did speak on that legislation, which I supported, apart from the phasing out of analog, which I will continue to oppose in the interests of rural Australians.15:32:002642Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you claim to have been personally misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I have been misrepresented grievously and twice by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp). The minister continued to assert that I supported enabling employers to charge fees for placing workers and quoted CES plus as evidence of that. I did not support CES plus. In fact, the documents demonstrate that this was a total failure because in the financial year 1992-93 it produced only $4 million in revenue out of a $1.7 billion budget.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his personal explanation.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The second personal explanation is this: I said in a question today in the parliament that CES plus was a total failure. The minister tried to argue that my reference to total failure referred to the whole of the CES operation. It did not. I argued that it was the policy that was a failure and it is the only policy that this government is now relying on. They are duds and they have misrepresented.15:33:002643Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have misrepresented?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—In the House today in question time the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) made a deceitful statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will withdraw that.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I said he made a deceitful statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Okay, but you have to be very careful about the remarks you use.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—He made a deceitful statement which suggested that I was opposed to skilled migration. The facts are that in a debate concerning the fall in apprenticeships by 5,000 since the government changed and a fall in the growth of traineeships from 146 per cent to 61 per cent—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will direct his remarks to where he has been personally misrepresented.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I said that so far as I am concerned we should not support skilled migration at the expense of training for Australia.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order again is that none of the statements emanating from the member for Batman have anything to do with where he was personally misrepresented. He is just using it as an opportunity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will identify where he has been personally misrepresented and respond within the brevity that is allowed within this procedure.10000Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I said, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs told the House today in question time that I was opposed to skilled migration. The truth of the matter is, as the record will show—in fact, Hansard of 6 April—that I have clearly stated that we should not support skilled migration at the expense of apprenticeships and traineeships for Australia's unemployed and that our priority ought to be jobs for Australians and not skilled migration at the expense of jobs for Australians.Questions to the Speaker264326432643Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I have before me a letter dated 2 April signed by the Acting Parliamentary Librarian, which I think has been sent to all members, stating that the library will be closed from 8 p.m. on sitting nights from the start of the winter sittings. I do not know how many of my colleagues know this, but I would like to bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, a statement that was made by the current Leader of the House on 1 December 1995. He said:The library people are of great importance, especially to the opposition. Governments have the mass of bureaucracy to assist them. In opposition we do not have those same resources. We rely very much on the Library, the parliamentary research people . . . 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will direct his question.MG4Mr LEE—I am wondering, Mr Speaker, if you could perhaps reconsider this decision relating to the right of members to have access to the library after 8 p.m. on sitting days.2644Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There have been proposals regarding the hours of the library. I will look at the question of the honourable member for Dobell and respond further to the House.26442644Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My second question to you, Mr Speaker, concerns a question without notice addressed to the Prime Minister on 2 April. It was the question regarding the member for Gilmore's letter to the minister for health regarding an allegation that the Prime Minister's office had rung her asking to have someone accelerated on the list for dental care. The Prime Minister's answer was:I am not personally aware of the circumstances . . . 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not responsible for the Prime Minister's answer. What is the question to me?MG4Mr LEE—Here is the point, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister said that he would have the matter investigated. It is five days since the Prime Minister said he would investigate it. Could you use your good offices to ask the Prime Minister when we can expect an answer to the question?2644Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There are other procedures of this House whereby you can follow that course. Questions to me are not a way by which you should do so.26442644Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is in the same vein. In light of your answer, if it had been different, we would have had to address many of the examples the member for Jagajaga has raised of fictitious people who have not been pursued by the ministers.2644Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—No question is involved in that.26442644Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Mr Speaker, could I congratulate you on your—BV5ADAMSMr Adams—He's a parliamentary secretary.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is a parliamentary secretary, not a minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, could I congratulate you on your attempts to raise parliamentary standards and ask: given the tendency of frontbenchers opposite to shout you down, have you considered installing a switch in your chair so you can turn off microphones?QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—MG4LEEMr Lee—There is one there already.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will keep quiet; I cannot hear what the honourable member for Chifley is trying to say.QI4PRICEMr Price—With great respect to you, Mr Speaker, I understand it says in the standing orders that parliamentary secretaries, with the exception of answering questions, are to be treated as ministers, and ministers are not normally in the position of directing questions to you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As I understand it, there is a difference between parliamentary secretaries asking questions of ministers—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent. If he wants to leave the House he can do so. The member for Chifley asked whether or not parliamentary secretaries can ask questions in this place. My advice is that they can ask questions of the Speaker but not of ministers.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Given the tendency of frontbenchers opposite to try to shout you down, I think it would help the House if you had the capacity to turn off the microphones at the dispatch box. Would you consider having any system in this regard installed so that proper discipline can be maintained in the House?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Typical of your attitude towards the opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent. You have been warned already.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Dictatorship!2645Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—If the honourable member wants to leave the House she shall do so. The member suggested that the microphones should be turned off. There are already instructions that microphones be opened only for those who have the call.26452645McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Pursuant to standing order 150, would you please write to the Minister for Health and Family Services in respect of question Nos 2236, 2445 and 2538.2645Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In accordance with the responsibilities conferred on me, I shall be happy to do so.Business264515:41:002645Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I crave your indulgence for a brief moment, Mr Speaker, to mention the arrangements for the sitting of the House. The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] is currently before the Senate. The expectation is that the Senate will conclude its deliberations on that matter early in the evening tomorrow. The government is obviously keen to deal with that issue prior to Easter; therefore we are proposing that the House remain sitting until the Senate's deliberations are transmitted to the House. On current indications they may finish at 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m., or something of that order, but obviously it is difficult to predict with any accuracy the conclusion of the Senate's consideration. We expect that it would take around three hours for the paperwork to be prepared to transmit from the Senate to the House of Representatives, but I would say that that is—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Why don't you get your rednecks over there to shut up?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You are better when you are colourless, Gareth. It did take nine, 10 or 11 hours last time, so we would hope that this time it will be a simpler matter for the paperwork, given that it is the second time it has been there. The point I am simply making is that it looks as though the House will be sitting until very late tomorrow night. We feel that it would be better to sit on and conclude whenever so that people can at least catch the planes which they have already booked on Thursday morning, given that it is Easter. If we do not do that, it would be difficult making alternative aeroplane bookings. I am therefore proposing that we have a dinner break between 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. tomorrow and we will keep—DT4CREANMr Crean—Eight-thirty.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Let us stick to 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m., but we can discuss it as tomorrow proceeds. We will endeavour to keep members fully informed as we ourselves are informed about progress. I would also hope, subject to agreement with the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean), if we can achieve that we might have an extended adjournment tomorrow night as well. But we would need to discuss that. That is the state of play and, as I say, I will keep the House informed.Documents26452645Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Australian Horticultural Corporation Act—Australian Dried Fruits Board—6th report, for 1996-97.Ministerial Statements2645264515:44:002645Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—by leave—I preface my remarks by welcoming into the Speaker's gallery this afternoon members of the ex-service community from Canberra—and I also think there are some here from Sydney—for this statement. Eighty years ago this month, a young man named George Gordon was killed on the Western Front in France. He was just an ordinary bloke, a roof tiler who lived at Concord in Sydney with his wife, Cathy, and their baby son. On that day in early April 1918, walking a few yards from his mate, Alfred Lane, George was cut down by the blast of a German shell exploding nearby.Eighty years ago this month the department, now known as Veterans' Affairs, was formally established with a charter to repatriate those returning from the First World War. This act of public policy shares more than an anniversary with the personal tragedy of George Gordon's death. The story of the two men at the centre of those few tragic seconds in France has remained the very essence of our mission, our work, our goals. Care of both those who returned and those who fell remain our twin obligations.With the creation of the then named department of repatriation, the Australian government took its first steps into areas such as public housing and health administration. Although the nation had developed pension schemes by the turn of the century, the return of our soldiers and the need to care for dependants such as George Gordon's widow and son hastened activity and policy development in this area. The monetary cost has been staggering. In this financial year, $6.7 billion will be spent caring for and supporting veterans and their dependants; yet I know it is a cost that the Australian people willingly pay.The repatriation system is not simply a component of government. It has a complex ownership, perhaps most accurately described as a unique partnership between the ex-service community, the government and the broader Australian community. Our young nation's willingness to offer itself so completely for the cause of freedom and justice this century—not just in the world wars, but also in Korea, Vietnam, Malaya and other conflicts—has required a repatriation system able to provide support, compensation and of course health care.Men like Alfred Lane came home needing years of medical treatment. To best serve their needs, in 1921 the repatriation department took over control of military hospitals in all states. In the same year, outpatient clinics and artificial limb factories were established. Since most of these institutions and services were in the big cities, the local medical officer scheme was set up to cater for ex-servicemen in the bush. By 1919 more than 400 doctors around Australia had been appointed as local medical officers. Today there are 16,000 local medical officers.The specialised focus on war related medicine in repatriation hospitals proved valuable. Many developments in medical science pioneered in those hospitals have been and continue to be applied in general medicine, treating Australians, young and old, who have never personally endured the horror of war. Similarly, the gradual shift from the old, rigid approaches in treating psychiatric conditions came about from observation of repatriation hospital patients. A better understanding of the causes and effects of post-traumatic stress disorder followed in depth research involving veterans of the Vietnam War. Today the research goes on in search of new and better ways to treat the conditions which afflict veterans and the wider community.After 80 years, repatriation in this country continues to evolve. Private patient care in public and contracted private hospitals has replaced the care provided through repatriation general hospitals. The Repatriation Medical Authority offers certainty and consistency in medical compensation issues. Where once our focus was almost entirely on the treatment of specific conditions, we now also confront the challenge of maintaining independence and quality of life. Coverage under the Veterans' Entitlements Act continues to expand, and standards of service for the veteran community are now formally set out in the veterans' service charter, which I expect to release in a few weeks time. I have no doubt there will be more change—next month, next year, next century—because repatriation in this country has always been driven by the need to provide our veterans and their families with the very best this country has to offer.Although health care and compensation have been the more widely known faces of repatriation, some of the greatest challenges over 80 years have been securing homes and jobs for entire generations of young Australians. Physical and mental trauma denied many the chance to even seek employment. For others, the difficulties were more subtle. One original digger wrote:We came back to our careers as clumsy beginners, yet lacking the humility of beginners, demanding of ourselves the same skill and success as we had achieved in the business of soldiering.Yet, from 1919 until the present day, helping soldiers move into meaningful and satisfying careers outside of the services has been a priority of the repatriation system. Training in technical and other skills was provided after the First World War and, after World War II, returned personnel were assisted with subsidised tertiary education, including living allowances.The need for employment assistance has not abated. Now a vocational retraining scheme helps younger veterans to find and retain jobs. For many returned servicemen the soldier settlement schemes were the answer to finding both a job and a home. The first scheme, established after World War I, was at best a limited success when the combination of the harsh, unforgiving environment, a lack of capital and the impact of the Depression hit home.A more realistic arrangement was devised for the scheme introduced after World War II. This gave settlers a sounder capital base, a stepped repayment program and training in rural skills for those who needed it. Lessons had been well learnt and many more succeeded. To this day, some World War II veterans remain on their farms. Other farms have been passed to children and grandchildren. Many rural settlements like Robinvale, Loxton, Beerburrum, Wandoan, Kangaroo Island and the Murrumbidgee irrigation area would not be the communities they are today without the honest toil of soldier settlers.Working in tandem with soldier settlement was another key principle of early repatriation policy: putting the great Australian dream—owning a home—within the grasp of those who had served their country in war. The war service homes scheme, now called defence service homes, offered veterans or their dependants the opportunity to acquire homes for modest sums with mortgages at low rates of interest. The foundation stone of the first war service house was laid in Sydney in July 1919.During the Depression, many could not afford to keep up the payments so special arrangements were made—the term of the mortgage was extended, instalments reduced or even deferred. This attitude has characterised the scheme's administration throughout its history, and today 86,000 veterans enjoy home loan interest rates with a guaranteed subsidy.Of course, for over 102,000 Australians, the chance for a career, home and family was denied. They remain where they fell, becoming one with the lands where they struggled, on every continent on earth. Since World War I, the Imperial War Graves Commission, now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, held chief responsibility for all cemeteries for British Commonwealth war dead. The Australian government, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, now shares some administrative responsibility and costs of establishing and maintaining these cemeteries.They are very special places where as Australians we can feel immensely proud of what our country stood for then and stands for now. The years pass, the distance between those men and women and us grows. Yet, with growing commitment, we remember them—at memorials in every town, suburb and city centre, at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, at memorials throughout the world, on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day, and in fact on any given day, when someone, somewhere, thinks of those who gave all that they had to give.Eighty years on, I believe that the Australian government and the Australian people, through the repatriation system administered by today's Department of Veterans' Affairs, have kept faith with those to whom we owe everything. In partnership with ex-service organisations, many wounds have been healed, many families supported and many lives rebuilt.As Australia approaches its centenary of Federation, the duty to care for veterans of war and peacekeeping is still proudly accepted by all Australians, as it was when the nation was yet young. We acknowledge the debt that is owed, and we willingly carry forward into Australia's next century the responsibility, passed on to us from previous generations, of continuing to meet that debt and to commemorate their service.It is this government's promise—and one that I know is endorsed by the opposition—that we will continue to serve Australia's veterans, war widows and widowers and their dependants for as long as they need us. I know that we make this promise with the full support of the Australian community.This government is committed to maintaining the beneficial provisions underpinning the legislation which frames our repatriation system. Our commitment to supporting our veterans will not diminish with time. Only the ways in which we fulfil that commitment will change.I genuinely believe that men like George Gordon rest peacefully in the knowledge that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered and has enriched our nation; that their widows and children, many of whom like George's son grew up to fight in another war, were treated with respect, educated and helped through testing times; that their mates were given help with housing and new careers and could access the medical care they so desperately needed. And I hope they know that as a nation we have taken their legacy, their legend, as the very foundation of our national character, so that it lives on in the soul of every Australian.We can never fully know the human cost—of potential unfulfilled, of achievement never realised, of personal happiness and contentment never enjoyed. No repatriation system can ever replace in full what war takes away. But, in supporting, caring, compensating and remembering, each and every one of us is expressing our profound appreciation and gratitude to those who served their country in the most selfless way. I present the following paper:80th Anniversary of Repatriation in Australia—Ministerial Statement, 7 April 199815:58:002648Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—by leave—As shadow minister for veterans affairs, I join with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) in commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It began operations on 8 April 1918 under the name of the Repatriation Department. Its 80th anniversary is an appropriate opportunity to celebrate its achievements, to restate the nation's deep debt to our veterans and war widows and to reaffirm the bipartisan commitment to provide sympathetic and generous repatriation assistance to those who have served and their dependants.Strictly speaking, the repatriation system is almost 84 years old, as the first system of Commonwealth war pensions came into operation in December 1914, during the term of office of Prime Minister Andrew Fisher. The War Pensions Act then provided pensions and medical treatment for members of the armed forces who were injured while on active service outside Australia and to widows and children of those who were killed in action. Such compensation and assistance have continued without interruption since that time.It is interesting to recall that the administration of war pensions was originally the responsibility of the Treasury. Subsequently, the government of William Morris Hughes introduced the Repatriation Act 1917—which later became the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act—which led to the establishment of the Repatriation Department in April 1918. His creation of a separate and specialist Commonwealth government agency to deal with repatriation matters was a far-sighted initiative, the legacy of which has endured through succeeding generations. The opposition joins the government in honouring this legacy.The achievements of our repatriation system need to be considered in the context of Australia's military history. Prior to Federation, various colonial contingents served overseas with British imperial forces. Since Federation, it is estimated that almost 102,000 Australians have been killed in action, 225,000 have been injured and almost 35,000 have been taken prisoner. The best estimate of the number of Australians who have served overseas since Federation is in excess of 1¾ million. This is the service, the personal sacrifice and the legacy that we honour today.The experience of Australia's participation in the First World War was clearly one of the defining moments in our history. It has been estimated that almost one in 15 Australians served in battle during the war and that, of those who served, almost two-thirds were wounded, killed or taken prisoner. We must never forget the spirit of those who served with such distinction at Gallipoli, in Europe and elsewhere. Equally, the horror of the carnage that occurred in the First World War should serve as a constant reminder that there is nothing attractive about war and should prod us to take a leading role in achieving peace and justice amongst nations and to ensure that we embark upon armed conflict only as a last resort. The experience of the war should also remind us that the use of weapons of mass destruction—be they chemical, biological or nuclear—against either combatants or civilian populations is totally unacceptable.Equally, the First World War had a dramatic impact on our thinking about repatriation measures. This went beyond the introduction of war pensions and medical treatment benefits, which I referred to earlier. Demobilisation of the AIF and the return of soldiers to civilian life was a massive undertaking and, to help achieve this, an embryonic system of rehabilitation and vocational training was introduced. In 1921 an education scheme was introduced to assist children of veterans who had died or become totally and permanently disabled. Three years later a royal commission reviewed the assessment of war service disabilities and this led to the war pension system being improved. Of particular significance was the introduction in 1929 of a system of appeals tribunals for veterans. These were the first Australian example of citizens having access to independent merit review tribunals where they were dissatisfied with the bureaucracy's handling of their cases. As we have seen recently, the preservation of that access is vital, as is the retention of the Veterans Review Board's specialist expertise.Standard of proof issues lie at the heart of much Australian debate on repatriation matters. It is relevant to note that the concept of giving veterans the `benefit of the doubt' was introduced into legislation in 1929, and was changed to the `benefit of any reasonable doubt' six years later. Particularly with the identification of the burnt-out digger syndrome around the time of the Great Depression, it became clear that the cumulative after-effects of war service were so severe that some veterans would never conceivably return to regular, paid employment. This led to the introduction in 1935 of the service pension to provide means-tested income support to veterans incapacitated as a result of `theatre of war' experience.For similar reasons, war service homes were introduced and continue today in the form of the defence services home scheme. This scheme has made a material contribution to the extremely high rate of home ownership in Australia. Soldier settlement schemes were also implemented with, it must be said, mixed success and they represent one of the few repatriation measures that have not survived the test of time.While conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder were not recognised and treated as adequately as they are today, it is clear that many First World War diggers suffered long-term after-effects on their health, and specialist medical services had to be established in response. These services, often operating from former military hospitals, were the precursors of our longstanding system of repatriation hospitals.The Second World War was the first time that the Commonwealth of Australia faced a realistic threat of being overrun by hostile forces and casualties were experienced on the Australian mainland. Almost a million Australians enlisted and the wider society and economy were placed on a war footing. At the time of the Australia Remembers commemorations in 1995, it was estimated that the financial cost of Australia's participation in that war represented almost 30 per cent of gross national income, or around $74 billion a year in today's terms. The human cost was of course far greater, including some 39,000 Australian deaths, and it continues to be felt to this day.Mindful of the experience of the First World War and the Great Depression, the government of John Curtin focused its attention on the challenges of post-war reconstruction well before victory was imminent. In 1942 a parliamentary joint committee was established to reform the repatriation legislation. Subsequently, coverage was extended with assistance payable for incapacity or death that `arose out of or was attributable to' operational service. Previously, it was required that an injury or death had to be `directly attributable' to a person's war service. A comprehensive vocational training scheme for veterans was also developed, and operated under the Department of Post War Reconstruction until that department was disbanded in 1949.Since the Second World War, Australians have served with distinction in the Korean War, in the Malayan Emergency, in the Indonesian confrontation, in Vietnam, in the Gulf War and in various peacekeeping operations. Our participation in some of these conflicts was problematic. For the repatriation system they have required progressively finer judgments to be made about what constitutes `theatre of war' service, deserving of full benefits, or what constitutes operational service, providing partial benefits. It is appropriate to note that not all entitlement anomalies from this period have been satisfactorily resolved and that there is a still reluctance to openly acknowledge the nature of our past involvement in some locations.The after-effects of our forces' involuntary participation in nuclear weapons testing and chemical warfare experiments demand the community's and the parliament's attention and a sympathetic response. The recent reports on the health and mortality of our Vietnam veterans and the seemingly increased incidence of congenital abnormalities amongst their children show that there is still much unfinished business on that front.As we approach the centenary of Federation, it is also imperative that we continue to commemorate the service and sacrifice of our veterans, building on the undoubted achieve ments of the Australia Remembers program. It is particularly important that young Australians are familiar with the history of our military involvement, the courage of our forces and the horrors of war.In concluding, I congratulate the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the occasion of its 80th anniversary. Its role in assisting almost half a million veterans, war widows and dependants is a vital and continuing one. There is a bipartisan commitment that the Commonwealth will continue to honour the nation's debt to veterans through programs of commemoration, compensation, income support, health care and housing assistance. For its part, the opposition is certainly committed to retain the department as the best mechanism to fund or provide these programs. We congratulate it for a job well done and wish its staff and its clients all the best for the future.Motion (by Mr Warwick Smith) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance2650265010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)— Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's continued failure to explain to lower and middle income earners the huge negative impact upon them of its proposed GST.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—16:08:002650Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Where is it? Where is this tax reform package, this all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles tax package that we were promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) now nearly a full year ago? For nearly a year now we have had 80 or more officers of the Treasury and the tax office slaving, we are told, more or less full time on this. The midnight oil has been burning, the options papers have been generated and the rhetoric has moved into absolute overdrive so far as the political side of the coin is concerned.But where is the product? And where is the Treasurer? Will he come in and defend his product on this occasion? It is a secret. Even a public canvassing of the quantified options that might be being considered might be a small contribution to an informed public debate on this issue. Where is the description of possible trade-offs between different complex policy options in this particular area? Where is the explanation, such as it might be usefully given to the public, of the impact of the particular kinds of options in this tax debate? Where is the promised paper on family trusts and the tax treatment of that, which was a deliberate and specific proposal—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—It is in Parer's office.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—It is in Parer's office, like the rest of the government's whole performance on this—hiding, cringing, not wanting these issues to come out and be exposed to the light of day.In the course of all this, parliament and the community are being treated with absolute contempt. What the government is obviously proposing to do is to save up till the last possible minute whatever it is that is in its tax package, assuming it can resolve all the innumerable conflicts of interest that are now crowding in upon it as it tries to come up with the final package. Obviously it is the government's intention to launch the package—whatever it is, whenever it is ready, whenever the government is ready to bring it into the public domain—with the maximum hoopla. Obviously the intention is to dazzle us with the baubles, to dazzle us with the bribes. Obviously the intention is to emphasise the winners that will be no doubt set out and provided for somewhere in the package and to ignore the losers. Above all, in particular, unquestionably what will happen is that the government in its presentation will ignore those who will be losers from the introduction of the GST component of its package. It is a GST which John Howard said back in May 1995 would never be introduced; a GST which Peter Costello, in the term of the current government, in November 1996, said was snake oil.There are a great many reasons why we say a GST is neither necessary nor desirable, why it is not a benefit but a burden for this community, why it is not an asset for the Australian economy but a liability. Some of those reasons include the massive new hassles and impositions that a GST will represent for small business, with the tax collection agencies out in the community moving from the present figure of 75,000 to over one million new collection points. The tax office itself tells us that the compliance costs that are involved for the average business in WST administration with the responsibility for that administration are much less in fact than will be involved in the case of small business—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Rubbish, Gareth; read their report.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—No, that is not what they say. You look at the costs involved. I have, and that is what they are saying. What is also obviously the case about the GST—and we will say this on many more occasions that I have got time to develop here—is that it does not address real problems in the tax system, the real problems in the tax system being concentrated, as they overwhelmingly are, in the income tax area, where there is a problem of bracket creep for average wage earners, as has always been the case; where there is a problem of high effective marginal rates for low income families; where there is the problem of the erosion of the PAYE system, particularly in favour of people describing themselves as independent contractors or subcontractors; and where, above all else, there is a very real problem of avoidance of the paying of their fair share of taxation by a great many high income, high wealth individuals in this community—starting, of course, with the people like Senator Parer and the other 18 members on the government front bench who possess family trusts; the 19 out of the 37 coalition senators who owned up to possessing family trusts when they had to declare their interests in the Senate the other day and God knows how many other members of the House of Representatives back bench, all of whom demonstrate reasons why it is that we are hearing so little from the government on this particular aspect of the equation.Obviously a GST does not help with such economic problems as the country has at the moment. It does nothing to support an increase in savings in the community, as has become particularly evident, I guess, in recent times in New Zealand where the current account deficit has absolutely blown out, notwithstanding that the GST in existence in New Zealand is of a kind that has generated a great deal of passionate ideological support from the government here. If the New Zealand experience is any guide to what a GST contributes to that part of the economic equation then it is no case at all for the government. The GST does nothing to keep inflation in check. On the contrary, if it generates some kind of wage push to respond to it, the contrary effect will occur. A GST does nothing whatever to stimulate employment. There is no correlation between those countries where there is a GST and their employment experience. In Europe you have got a GST and high unemployment; in the United States, the most successful economy in the world, there is no GST and in fact comparatively very low unemployment. There is also no correlation anywhere else in the world between the existence or otherwise of the GST and the scale of the black economy problem which exists. This is the familiar litany of problems that are associated with the GST.But overwhelmingly the biggest problem, and the problem on which we concentrate today, is that of unfairness—the inherent inequity, the inherent unfairness, of a GST so far, for a start, as retirees are concerned, who have paid income tax all their working lives and who now, when they are living on fixed income, spending and drawing down their capital, are taxed on that too. But above all there is unfairness for low and middle income Australians generally; unfairness because there is just an inherent unfairness, an inherent regressivity, about a tax system which places an emphasis on taxing people equal amounts for goods and services they buy whatever their income. Lower income people, particularly the sort of people that the minister at the table, the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith), is supposedly responsible for—I wonder how strong a voice he has been in the cabinet arguing on this—necessarily spend a much higher percentage of their income than is the case with rich people. There is unfairness for lower and middle income earners because it is almost impossible to define and to implement a compensation system that will work equally well for all categories of low income earners. There is unfairness because, if you do come up with some kind of compensation system which might look halfway fair at the time of its introduction, you can absolutely not guarantee that it will remain so in the future.There is bound to be an erosion as there was in New Zealand with the sneaking up of the tax rate from 10 to 12½ per cent and as there was in the UK with the sneaking of that rate up to 17½ per cent. And as rates go up equity goes down. Who in Australia could trust a Peter Costello or a John Howard to develop and implement a fair tax system in the first place? Who in Australia could possibly trust a Peter Costello or a John Howard to maintain a GST at 10 per cent or whatever rate it is first introduced? That is their record—a fistful of dollars today and an iron fist tomorrow—and that is what people have to expect if they are going to contemplate the introduction of a GST. When we have a GST introduced at, say, 10 per cent and as it sneaks its way successively up to 17½ per cent or as we have a compensation package which is steadily eroded with the passage of time, we will be told, `Sorry, to keep the GST at the level at which it was introduced was just a non-core promise.'The evidence is overwhelming that the only people who will benefit from a GST are high income earners. One of the best descriptions and demonstrations of that is in the winter 1997 Australia Consumers Association's publication Consuming interest, where the modelling was done and where the arguments emerge as absolutely compelling. A whole series of scenarios are mapped and tabulated involving a GST at different rates, involving a GST with or without a big list of exemptions and involving a GST with or without big accompanying income tax cuts. This analysis shows that the only winners, as distinct from losers, on any of these scenarios are high income couples—high income couples in the top 20 per cent of the income scale in Australia. The losers—and maybe the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) at the table will listen to this—are couples in households of 65 or over and those in households whose principal source of income is government pensions and allowances. Losers are couples in the low income bracket—in the lowest 20 per cent—in households with dependent children. Couples who are on an average income with dependent children are also losers. One parent low income households—in the lowest 20 per cent—and one parent average income households with dependent children are also losers. When you map the changes—and you have the Australian Consumers Association mapping those changes with great specificity and great rigour—every single one of them demonstrates that the only losers in the entire system are those on low and middle incomes. The only winners from a GST are those on high incomes. I seek leave to table the extract of that particular report.Leave granted.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—The story that I particularly wanted to emphasise today was that about the extent to which the absence of exemptions in the context of a GST make even bigger losers of those who would otherwise be losers anyway from the system. If you do not exempt or zero rate whole particular categories of goods and services, you make the negative impact of all of this even worse. There is no doubt that the Treasurer and the government are approaching this whole exercise of a GST with a passionate concern, if they possibly can, and to introduce a GST with the minimum possible number of exemptions. To do so maximises the financial return they can generate, maximises the amount of money they will have left over to put into direct tax cuts—baubles and bribes— and, of course, in the process, maximises the regressivity that is associated with that.There are particular areas that absolutely cry out for exemptions to be granted. One such area is of course food. If you do not exempt food, you create a situation where a huge number of Australians—in particular, the 2½ million Australians who are in receipt of government pensions and benefits—will be the major sufferers. Welfare groups have told us that low income earners spend up to 40 per cent of their income on food while high income earners spend just 11 per cent. This means that, inevitably, if you do not exempt food—and it has not been ruled out by the Treasurer—in that way, you are creating an even more inequitable situation than would otherwise be the case. Similarly with rent, low income earners—we are told by the Real Estate Institute of Australia—already spend one-third of their gross income on rent, and a 10 per cent increase in rent prices would force some people to go without other basic necessities like food, clothes and education for their kids.Today the Treasurer was asked very explicitly whether he would rule out rent from the application of the GST and he absolutely refused to do so. Yesterday the Treasurer was asked whether he would rule out any health expenses—medical and dental bills, private health insurance contributions, home and community care service fees, nursing home fees and anything else in the health service area—from the operation of the GST. Absolutely not. It would be interesting for the minister at the table to get up and tell us how assiduously, how seriously, how effectively and how aggressively he argued with the Treasurer for the exemption and the zero rating of the whole health area. We had a failure to rule out education expenses, whether they are at the school level or at the university level. We have asked the question; we have not been given an answer. The implications of that for ordinary, low and middle income families in terms of the additional burdens they have to contemplate in the future are just immense.Perhaps most interesting of all—because I do not think this has penetrated the conscious ness of many people in the community—is that we have had a failure to rule out the possible application of a GST to local council rates and all the community services that are provided by local government that may or may not be within the rate base that may be separately charged for as well. In New Zealand, the payment of rates is GSTable because it is a surrogate for the services that are delivered by local government. It is taxed at 12½ per cent. KPMG has done the analysis for Australia of what that would mean—translated into the Australian experience—and it comes out at $200 a year extra for every average household in Australia paying council rates.That is what is involved in a GST. People have not even begun to contemplate the impact of this. Add up the hundreds of dollars involved in the GST impact on health expenses for the average family, a couple of hundred dollars for the rate expenditure involved and the dollars involved in the education expenses, the rent, the gas, the electricity, the power, the water and the sewerage. All of these things are GSTable. All of them are part and parcel of GST systems as they operate everywhere else. It is not just haircuts and hamburgers. It is not just taking your cat to the vet and your car to the service station.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—The footy.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—It is not just the footy and the movies, but they are covered too of course. It is things that go to the heart and soul of the family budget of low and middle income earners in this country. Unless and until this government come to the table of this parliament and actually start explaining how some of these things are going to sit within the proposal for tax reform that they are talking about, they will not persuade us nor will they persuade anyone else in the Australian community that they are doing anything else than introducing to this country a monstrously unfair and regressive system. (Time expired)16:23:002654Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—It is almost as if there has been a lobotomy on the collective brain of the Labor Party. They have forgotten and cannot access that area of their collective wisdom that refers to tax reform. They are not interested, do not know, will not move ahead, learn nothing, know nothing and will not change anything.The wage and salary earners of Australia are the hardest hit under the present tax system. Their personal tax is high, by international standards, and applies to people with average incomes. What the Australian Labor Party fails to recognise and what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), will not acknowledge is that next year average wage earners will be paying 43c in the dollar on each additional dollar they earn; by the year 2000 they will be paying 47c in the dollar. Is that the sort of policy the Australian Labor Party stand for? Evidently they do stand for average wage earners paying 43c and 47c in the dollar. There is no incentive for the average Australian to do a bit of extra work and earn a few extra dollars. Those are the policies and the ideas that the Australian Labor Party stand for.This pathetic matter of public importance has been brought before the House today by the shadow Treasurer. He has forgotten that tax reform is really important to his fellow Australians. The current wholesale sales tax is an illogical tax. It attacks areas of our economy that are important. It taxes biscuits and toothpaste but not works of art and caviar. And that is the system the Australian Labor Party supports. Under this system, sinks are taxed at 12 per cent but the pipe to which the sink is connected is not taxed at all; soft drinks are taxed at 22 per cent but cordial is taxed at 12 per cent; pet food is taxed at 22 per cent but, if you go down to the butcher's and buy a bag of bones for your dog or cat, that is not taxed at all; engagement rings are taxed at 32 per cent but not wedding rings. It is weird stuff. This is the sort of policy the Australian Labor Party is prepared to support.The arrangements that the Labor Party put in place, tolerated and have been prepared to put up with for 13 years are abhorred by most Australians. Under this system, detergents and other cleaners are taxed at 22 per cent; flavoured milk, fruit juice, biscuits, ice-cream, cutlery, fridges, dishwashers, cookers and microwaves are taxed at 12 per cent. Is that the system that the Australian Labor Party stands for—where fridges and cookers are taxed at 12 per cent? Under this system, cosmetics, shampoos, soap, deodorants, toothpaste, toilet paper, non-medicated mouthwash and spa baths are taxed at 22 per cent but toothbrushes and medicated mouthwashes are not taxed at all; handbasins, baths, toilets and towels are taxed at 12 per cent.This is hard enough for consumers, but what about the people who have to sell and deliver these materials to the average householder? What about the small business person? What about the person who has to do all the calculations on these different levels of taxation? If they get it wrong, they are fined. What about the people who have to know and have to set up their machinery so that they do not fudge the tax system? There are seven scales of wholesale sales tax in Australia, applying to a whole range of things. A medicated mouthwash is free; if it is not medicated it is taxed. These people must know this and apply it. What a complicated and wasteful system we have in Australia! But this is the system that the Australian Labor Party supports.Under this system, in the lounge room the television, video and stereo are taxed at 32 per cent; compact discs, computers and bric-a-brac are taxed at 22 per cent; furniture, carpets, airconditioners and vases are taxed at 12 per cent. What about the people selling this material in furniture stores? It is no wonder small businesses of Australia want to get out of this system. This system requires a 39-page tax ruling just to determine which type of printed material is subject to sales tax. And there is a 50-page tax ruling to explain the value on which sales tax is assessed. These are the things that small businesses in Australia have to cope with on a day-to-day basis, the sorts of things their tax advisers need to cope with.Australia, with its wholesale sales tax system, ranks with leading economic giants such as Botswana, Pakistan and Swaziland. The sales tax system we have in Australia today ranks with those countries with which we do not wish to be compared in other contexts. On this matter, the collective brain of the Australian Labor Party is stuck on the belief that we must have a wholesale sales tax.Exporters must pay this tax. It is built into the prices of everything that we buy. I cannot believe that there is a real argument for the continuation of wholesale sales tax in Australia. It increases costs, including the cost to overseas buyers. The taxing of a wide range of business imports makes sales tax an ineffective tax and, worse, makes exports more expensive. The export price of Australian made goods is prejudiced by as much as nine per cent, with an average in the area of five per cent because of indirect sales taxes imposed on business costs.The Australian Labor Party wants Australia to go ahead with a tax on our exports—a complicated tax at that. No wonder small businesses in Australia want to see it removed. Australian federal taxes rely too heavily on income tax and on personal taxes. This proposal and idea is not of the opposition, not of the government, not of anyone but the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia, which have to administer it. They are sick of the money they must charge their clients day after day for the complicated system that we have in place in Australia at the moment.There is a wide range of taxes on business which need reforming, not just wholesale sales tax. The current business tax system allows widely varying outcomes for the same activity. Taxpayers can achieve very different results after tax by conducting investments through different business structures. People know this, and they resent it. They do not like the high-fliers whom the Australian Labor Party allow to continue to do this. We are the party and the government that has done something about trusts—something those opposite refuse to do.The laws are before the House at the moment. The member opposite smiles. I have not heard you say that they do not go far enough. I have not heard you debate a single tax bill, in fact. I have not heard the member make a contribution to where the Australian taxation of trusts should go. But this government is doing something about them, and the proof is in the House and in the Senate right at the moment.Taxpayers can achieve these different results. Individuals and partners can access income or tax benefits directly, while imputation arrangements for companies remove any tax preferences when income is distributed to shareholders. Trusts can also distribute tax preferences directly to beneficiaries but cannot distribute losses. Investments through life companies produce different tax outcomes depending on the classification of the investment and who made it. Our system also draws a distinction between revenue and capital, what is taxed on nominal or real bases and what is taxed on accrual compared to realisation. Under current arrangements, investors need to devote considerable resources to planning the best way through the tax arrangement. It also encourages the use of tax planning devices to artificially lower tax outcomes.There are a number of areas of business taxes that need to be changed. What does the Australian Labor Party say about tax reform? Let us refer first of all to small businesses. Surveys of the Yellow Pages, submissions by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Small Business Deregulation Task Force—that is, the Bell task force—all have made comments about their preferences in taxation. They strongly support simplification and they support the reform as being proposed by the government of Australia.Businesses are saying, `Reform. Let's change.' And rightly so. A study of compliance commissioned by the Australian Taxation Office, released in February this year, found that compliance costs are regressive and hit small businesses harder. A disproportionately high burden is borne by small business in compliance costs. The high level of concern expressed by taxpayers in respect of compliance costs is with the wholesale sales tax and fringe benefits taxes. Unlike the Australian Labor Party is presenting, those taxes are serious taxes for compliance costs, and they are seen as such by small businesses, the professionals, the advisers, the small business organisations and the Taxation Office itself. Time taken by small business owners or operators to fill in forms can take up to two-thirds of the cost of compliance.What does the Australian Labor Party say about the need for reform? The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, in October last year said, `We have a fairer tax system and a lower tax system than most countries.' The average taxpayer is heading for being taxed at 47 per cent by the year 2000? Is that fair? Is that lower? It is unreal! The Leader of the Opposition is remote from the needs of the Australian people. Just a couple of months before that he said:Well, the first point to make is that we are a low-taxed nation.There's nothing like Kim for leading with his chin. He continued:There's no question about that. We're about the second or third off the bottom in the industrialised world when it comes to low taxes . . . We don't have a tax problem in this country.What rubbish! Nobody in this nation but he believes that. It is absolute bunkum. The shadow Treasurer is just as bad because at the same time he said:Those who say that the tax system is broke are really being a bit absurdly breathless.Who is being breathless? It is a wonder he could get the words out because he is not able to get other words out in this parliament to make apologies where they are needed. It is a wonder he could even say anything about the tax system. Do they want the system to stay where it is? Cheryl Kernot offers a breath of hope, but I think she will not be able to say a great deal in this area. In May last year she said:But without genuine taxation reform we are not going to make a lot of progress as a nation whether we are a republic or not.Further, she said:I am prepared to leave the door open on a broad based consumption tax except that we still have the reservations that are left over from last time.There she was, as the Leader of the Australian Democrats, saying that Australia needs to reform its tax system. But now Cheryl Kernot, supporting the Labor Party, will not stand up for what she really believes in.I am disappointed that the Australian Labor Party have a closed mind on these issues. They have chosen to ignore two important parliamentary reports: A question of balance: the tax treatment of small business and Taxing relaxing, a report on the impact of Australia's taxation regime on tourism. They have even chosen to ignore former deputy commissioner of taxation, Mr Ray Conwell, who on 21 October 1994, when things were running hot for the Australian Labor Party, saidSo much for Government rhetoric about the desire for Australian business to be internationally competitive. Actions speak louder than words. And with tax laws like this, we must be the laughing stock of most of our competitors.That is the system the Australian Labor Party does not want to change. The endorsements that the government has had from businesses and small businesses are outstanding and widespread. The Metal Trades Industry Association, the Council of Small Business Organisations and its leader Rob Bastian, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Taxation Institute of Australia, the Australian Business Chamber and the Business Council of Australia all support a change to Australian taxation. (Time expired)16:38:002657Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), has just given us a riveting recitation of a list of items that are already taxed and discussions of the current tax system. But we are debating this matter of public importance today because the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the government will not reveal the details of their proposed new tax, their GST.Let us be absolutely blunt about this: the major problem with a GST is that it is regressive. Whether you call it a VAT, a GST or the unfortunately named `Bobbit', it takes a higher proportion of the income of low income families than of high income earners. No matter what the rate, the exemptions or the compensations promised, those on low and modest incomes will pay more. Low income earners will have no choice at all but to spend more of their income on the basic necessities, including food, clothing, rent, water, sewerage services, electricity supplies, education and health costs. The broader the base, the bigger the impact.But make no mistake: any exemptions given today are likely to be dropped tomorrow. Of course, it will impose enormous additional costs on small businesses, making them front-line tax collectors. Despite claims to the contrary, it will not eliminate the black economy—let us put that to rest—but simply change its form. It is not justified either by the so-called need to reform the existing sales tax regime; that can be done without a GST. In any case, why should we agree to a tax which massively reduces the price of a BMW and other luxury playthings of the wealthy, while increasing the price of bread, milk, meat, fruit and vegetables and all the other necessities of life? Cheaper BMWs and more expensive vegetables—is that what you stand for?Most families, especially the elderly and those with children, are already stretched to the limit—and those of us who represent these people know it. Even an extra five per cent on all their goods and services would make their financial position impossible and their lives unbearable. People with low incomes and/or large families, as we have heard, necessarily spend a higher proportion of their incomes on life's necessities. A GST—and make no mistake about it—will hit them for six. They will have to give up necessary consumption to pay the tax. They will do without. That is the effect of a GST.Any GST—whatever its form, whatever the exemptions, whatever the compensations—will markedly increase costs to the ordinary family. This is a tax on living. From the cradle to the grave, every product or service you need will be taxed. We have not been told otherwise; this is the way it is to be. The food on the table, the clothes for the children, the child-care fees—on top of the increases already imposed by this government—the bus fare to school or to the senior citizens centre, the school books and the canteen lunches, the school fees and charges will all go up. So will the doctor's visit for the baby's glue ear or the medicines that she needs. The prices will all increase.Your father's nursing home or home and community care fees will increase. Every time you turn on the lights or water the garden, you will be paying extra taxes for the privilege. Taking out your rubbish and using the library will be more expensive under this regime. Even a walk in the park will cost you more, courtesy of the extra rates you will be paying to the local council. The costs for joining the kids up to the local football and netball clubs will all be higher. If you injure yourself and you need physiotherapy, for example, you will pay extra. Getting your teeth fixed will be even more expensive than it is now under this government.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—The glue will cost more too.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Probably. It seems inevitable that many people will simply not be able to afford these services, and many already have enormous difficulty paying for them—especially with cuts to state and Commonwealth services and programs. Taking the kids to the movies or the local swimming pool will cost more with a GST. A visit to the local pizza shop after the outing will almost certainly be out of the reach of most families—certainly in my electorate.If you need the advice of an accountant or a lawyer for your family or business, you will be paying more than the already hefty charges they levy. All your STD phone calls will cost more. And, if you survive all of this, you or your grieving family will pay a GST on your funeral.The GST itself was supposed to be dead and buried. The Prime Minister—the ironically named `Honest' Johnny Howard—told us so on 2 May 1995 when he said:There is no way a GST will ever be part of our policy . . . That is what he said, but he is not denying it now. In a press release of the same day, he emphasised:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy.They are not denying it now though. And he went on to say:Nor will it be at any time in the future.This looks like the future to me—and yet it is on the agenda again. He continued:It is completely off the political agenda . . . That is what was said by `Honest' Johnny Howard, with those inverted comas firmly entrenched. It is on the political agenda, and they will not discuss it with the people of Australia. Here it is again, the grim spectre of the GST, disinterred and stalking the earth, behind the leer of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) tarted up in the guise of tax reform but still trailing the stench of death—and they will not discuss it.Everything the government has hinted at in its tax change agenda indicates that the GST will be accompanied by income tax cuts but that there will be no serious attempt to go after the high income earners with their family trusts and other tax avoidance tricks; they will be left alone. This kind of tax package is most likely to benefit the well off, exacerbating the already substantial problems inherent in a GST itself.There are many around the place who would argue that such a tax, a GST, is inevitable, but it is inevitable only if we and others roll over and allow this government to break its solemnly given word that it was off the agenda. To me, this tax reform package looks like a tactic to make the rich even richer. The wealthy appear to love consumption taxes, and it is almost certainly not because they will pay more tax. Claims that compensation packages will bridge the gap for those on low and fixed incomes are not borne out by reality. Experience in other jurisdictions shows that such packages are of necessity based on the average situation—disadvantaging those, for instance, who have to buy more expensive food or clothing because of medical reasons or because they live in remote and country areas. They are not looking after the bush.It is impossible, everyone tells us, to compensate fully and fairly; and in any case, wherever they have been introduced, the rates of consumption taxes have steadily increased—in fact everywhere that they have been introduced—and compensation packages have been eroded. In the United Kingdom the rate is now at 17½ per cent, and the tax burden there has shifted markedly from the rich, with their property and shares based income, to low and middle income families who derive most of their income from wages. In New Zealand, nearer to home, which started with a fairly substantial compensation package, the change of government saw an increase in the rate and the scrapping of most of the payments which were supposed to assist those on fixed and low incomes. Why would that not happen here? Given the experience of the last two years, it is almost certain to.In Canada a GST—referred to by many as a `gouge and screw tax'—was introduced in 1991 and led to a sharp increase in the cost of living, of inflation, causing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to publish a booklet entitled `The GST: A national disaster'. Yet this government is planning to introduce one in Australia. In Canada, as in other places, it increased inflation. It is also likely to affect employment by decreasing consumption. There is a risk of creating even greater unemployment than currently exists, particularly among the less well off. Again, the government do not care.In all three countries that I have mentioned, the effect of a GST has been to markedly widen the gap between the rich and the poor—something we can ill afford—with all of the negative effects such a divide already has on health, crime and social cohesion. Does anyone really believe that they will be better off with a GST? Except for a few of the wealthy, nobody does. I will mention a few commentators, including the current Treasurer, to make it clear. Mr Costello, in November 1996 when Treasurer, said:I pushed the GST . . . [but] I honestly now think it's receded from consciousness.He wishes. He continued:. . . it's being invested with some snake-oil qualities.You bet—by the Treasurer. The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission is more realistic and careful. They state:Shifting from income tax to a GST would increase tax burdens for low income earners and families. Precisely, and that is why we object to it. The Council of the Ageing in Australia, who know how to represent their members, state:Many older people are very fearful and strongly opposed to a GST.For good reason, because it is inimical to their interests as it is to the whole country. (Time expired)16:48:002659Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I look forward to entering this debate on tax reform in this country. I would like to refer to the MPI of today, which is signed by the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), who is not in the chamber to hear this debate. He has scurried out of the chamber, yet he purports to be the alternative Deputy Prime Minister. He purports to be the alternative Treasurer, and he is not here to listen to this debate. This MPI mentions the government's continued failure to explain to lower and middle income earners the huge negative impact upon them of the proposed GST. In fact, it is the opposition—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. When I first rose to my feet I noticed that you did not see me at the time. I would ask you to bring the member back to order to the relevant discussion, the matter of public importance. This has nothing to do with the member's opinion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. For his clarification, I will tell him that he does not purport to be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; he is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! The member is in order.FB6THOMSONMr Andrew Thomson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: it is entirely frivolous.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Yes. The member is in order.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that my contribution will not be interrupted by frivolous points of order, as we have seen throughout the last few weeks. The opposition's MPI mentions the government's continued failure. In fact, it should read the opposition's failure to explain to low and middle income earners the huge negative impact upon them of the current tax system— the current tax system which they are willing to defend, the current tax system which they believe is okay and that all we need to do is tinker at the edges. It is a failure by this opposition, it is a failure by the would-be Deputy Prime Minister and a failure by the would-be Treasurer who says that the current tax system is okay and therefore we had better not have a look at it. All we are doing is asking the Australian public to enter into a meaningful debate about tax reform. We are asking them to enter into this debate for the sake of all those families, the battlers, the low income earners, the middle income earners of Deakin, of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne who say they have had enough of the current system which has been propped up by this opposition and by the former government for the last 13 years.Eighty-two per cent of the Australian public—opinion leaders, media commentators and business community groups—have said that the current tax system needs to be fixed. The only people who have their heads in the sand on this issue are the Australian Labor Party. Their action is akin to sentencing all Australians, all the families in Deakin, to financial insecurity if we simply perpetuate the current tax system. They are condemning the thousands of Deakin families, the battling mums and dads, to an eroding of their income. The people of Deakin, the people of Australia, the battlers, deserve more than the prehistoric cliches and scare tactics that the ALP have given to us so far, as was evidenced by the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), who has the cheek to talk about honesty.This debate is all about resuscitating the political career and political credibility of Gareth Evans, the member for Holt. This is what it is all about. He has been on the back foot for the last week. He has been admonished by his leader. He has been admonished by his backbench. It is all about resuscitating the career of Gareth Evans, someone who is trying to overcome deprivation syndrome.KP6DARGAVELMr Dargavel—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The matter of public importance before us today is in relation to the government's continued failure to explain to lower and middle income earners the huge negative impact upon them of its proposed GST.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have made your point of order. The member is relevant.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—They do not like what they are hearing, that is the problem. On the way into Parliament House this morning I did not see the member for Holt staring down the barrel of a lens muttering his well-considered and premeditated sound bytes to the media. I thought: could it be that the media are no longer interested in the member for Holt or has Australia's most famous actor developed stage fright? This is about resuscitating his career. It is about the fact that he has been admonished by his leader and he has to try to get back on the main game. He has used today's question time and MPI to try to regain some semblance of credibility with the Australian public.He was back on his feet today giving his usual virtuoso performance. He is a jealous Othello, a brooding Hamlet and a tired old King Lear all rolled into one. He was back giving us a quarter of an hour about how we don't need tax reform. That is a bit odd coming from someone who said 18 months ago on 3AW:I think, since we are so under-taxed by any relevant international standard, there is a case for having some overall revenue increases.It is also a bit strange coming from someone who said less than a year ago on 5DN:. . . with the community mood as it is at the moment and the inability to effectively tax the services base of the community, because the existing system concentrates so much on taxing goods.He recognised through those statements the disproportionate burden of our tax system on the production manufacturing sector and on the personal income tax base—the personal income tax base of those people in my electorate that work darn hard every week for their money and see it eroded by a tax system which the opposition simply want to prop up.In 1955 personal income tax accounted for 38 per cent of government revenue. Today it accounts for 52 per cent of all taxes. This is what the Australian taxpayers are paying. The ALP want to make sure that we maintain that system and make sure that the PAYE taxpayer, the person who is working out there in the factories, in the Labor electorates and in the areas of Deakin, is paying for the system rather than having the tax system spread across a number of sectors in a broad based manner. It is a bit weird from someone who said even more recently:If the business community and the welfare community can get together, come up with some proposal that makes some kind of sense on all these fronts, that genuinely meets the concerns that people had about the equity of a tax system on consumption and expenditure, and that meets the needs of a larger economy, then of course we'd have a look at any such proposal.Who said that? Gareth Evans—the would-be Treasurer, the would-be Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here today.I am pleased to say that we are seeing a consistent recognition of the need for reform. We are seeing people out there saying, `It's about time we fix this system. It's about time you relieve the burden on our hip pockets through the PAYE system.' I am proud to say that, as a member of the tax task force, we have received some excellent submissions, and the consistency of those submissions has been very strong towards supporting change.The quotes that I have given have come straight from the member for Holt's mouth. But, as we saw last week, we know that what he says he never means. We must remember that our master Thespian deals not in ideas but in scripts. The Labor Party are good at writing scripts, selling them to the Australian people and then delivering something entirely different. From my previous life as a psychologist, I know that human behaviour is very hard to predict, but there is one thing which can give us an idea about someone's future performance and that is their past behaviour.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Their form.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—Their form. That is the best indicator of future performance. Let us take a look at past behaviour. We said in our tax booklet that the need to improve the tax system is overwhelming but that one political party will stand in the way—the Australian Labor Party. Remember in the 1993 election Labor promised not to put up taxes. As soon as they were elected they did—including $10 billion of hidden taxes. After the 1993 election, sales tax was increased across the board on everything from buckets to horse rugs, and sales tax on cars was increased from 16 per cent to 22 per cent.Before the election Labor promised not to put up tax. After the election Labor increased petrol excise by 5c per litre for unleaded petrol and 7c per litre for leaded petrol. Before the election they promised not to put up tax. After the election they increased the Medicare levy by 1½ per cent. Labor promised to reduce company tax and they increased it from 33c to 36c.You cannot trust the Labor Party. What they say and what they do are two different things. You can judge them on one thing—judge them on their past performance. I say to the Australian people, to the battlers in Deakin in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne: if you want to make sure you have a tax system which is equitable, which is spread across the system, there is only one party that will deliver and only one party that is in the debate and that is the federal coalition government. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The time for this debate has expired.Committees266126612661Motion (by Mr Andrew Thomson)—by leave—agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, Mr McArthur, the member for Corangamite, be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in place of Mr Zammit, the member for Lowe.Bills2661Message received from the Governor-General informing the House of assent to the following bills: Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Bill 1997 Family Trust Distribution Tax (Secondary Liability) Bill 1997 Committees26622662266210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Carr has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.Bills2662r4822662Debate resumed from 6 April, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:00:002662Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Before I was so rudely interrupted by the adjournment debate last night, I think I was trying to make the point that if you looked at the 1991-92 deregulation, you would see that a lot of effort went into trying to ensure that there was adequate consumer protection and a proper regulatory authority. I think it is fair to say that, in consulting with small business, the trade unions concerned and a whole variety of people, a lot of work went on behind the scenes before we saw the final legislation. What surprises me most about this is that there has been so little consideration of the impact on Australians, particularly, as I was mentioning, in the poorer urban areas of Australia as well as rural and regional Australia.I am surprised that there were no commitments sought by government backbenchers, particularly National Party backbenchers, in relation to what is a current or appropriate universal service obligation. I am surprised in this day and age that we would still consider it to be an ordinary telephone service. We cannot guarantee that people will be able to use faxes under this definition; we cannot guarantee that they will be able to use the Internet. It is a colossal advantage, in using the Internet, to link up with your service provider and be charged an untimed local call—but that is not the case in rural and regional Australia.There has certainly been a guarantee by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), as much as we can take him at his word, that there will be no timed local calls for ordinary residential customers for call and data services—but that is not the case for small businesses or farmers. That really surprises me. In a sense, rural and regional Australia are being sold out.I was disappointed when we were in government that there was never a proper inquiry into universal service obligations. I am staggered now that the government are committed to totally privatising Telstra that this is of no concern to them. There is nothing in the bill that says that the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) or any of the government backbenchers are in the least bit concerned about what services Australians are entitled to, irrespective of where they live and, in particular, the quality and speed of the repair of services.It is all very well to say, `We are going to fine the carriers $10 million.' I am not so sure that is going to deliver things for you. As a private company listed on the stock exchange, what right of redress will people have? Don't forget that, once this bill goes through, the directors will have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to improve the bottom line. What is at stake? Profits before service; profits before enhanced services. Unless there is a dollar in it, they are not going to do it.What is staggering is the fact that currently we have a real live example of what privatisation means. In rural and regional Australia there are independent cameramen who file stories to capital cities about important happenings in rural and regional Australia on a daily basis. They do that by going to a local exchange and hooking up to the reach network. In that way, their video is filed instantly back to the capital cities. What is this government doing? What are the back benchers who allegedly represent rural and regional Australia doing? They are allowing them to close down.The reach service will disappear completely on 1 August. We have heard not a whimper from rural and regional government members. They are completely unconcerned. What is the response from Telstra? They say that the network can be used for other things. I agree with that; it can be. There is no argument about that. They say that there are alternate means of providing the same service. Yes, there are. Those independent cameramen can go out and purchase a quarter of a million dollars worth of equipment and do the same thing by satellite. Who is pulling whose leg? It is not going to happen.The impact of this will be that we are going to get stories that affect rural and regional Australia back in the capital cities 24 hours after the event. That is a real tragedy. We do not hear any of the government members getting up and saying, `We are concerned about it.'7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—Because it is a nonsense.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—It is the absolute truth. We are getting a half apology from the member who is going to follow me in this debate. I will follow his contribution with great interest. I have not heard them make a whimper about it.When you have a large corporation whose sole responsibility is down to the bottom line, these are the sorts of decisions they can make. If extra capacity is needed in the exchanges to improve the quality of service to rural and regional Australia, it should be provided. Let us hear a defence from the member for Leichhardt as to why the power of ministerial direction is now being totally removed. The minister had the responsibility under our legislation to direct Telstra.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—They never used it.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—It was always there, my good friend. You are not even going to have the opportunity to use it, you silly fool. You are denying yourself the opportunity to use that power.I have always been interested in industry policy and, indeed, had a little bit to do with the communications industry policy that was adopted. I must say that communications and computers is the growth industry in the world. It outstrips tourism. Fundamental to the changes in deregulation in 1991 was the concept that both carriers would pull the smaller providers into the international markets; and that has worked successfully. We set a very ambitious target of $2 billion worth of goods and services in exports. My understanding is that we did not meet that, and I do not believe that it is a failure not to have met it. It was an ambitious target. But exports increased mightily.Because this is a public corporation and because you have not put the safeguards in the legislation, the big loser is going to be the Australian industry. Increasingly, you are going to see Telstra wind down its research laboratories, which are of world class standard, and it will no longer be as focused on exports as it was required to be under our legislation. Inevitably, Telstra will buy overseas and off the shelf. We can say, `That's a good deal for consumers, isn't it? We might get some equipment cheaper.' That is probably right; it probably will be a bit cheaper. But we are denying ourselves the toehold that we currently have in the fastest growth industry in the world—not in Australia, but in the world—in which we have demonstrated, whether it is at the level of the large companies (Alcatel, Ericsson, Siemens; that size of company) or at the level of the smaller innovative companies (the J-Techs, et cetera), that we are world class players when it comes to design and production and that we have done very well indeed.What you are doing is saying, `We want no more. This is not good for us. We forsake these industries; we forsake these jobs.' Regrettable as it may be that the current jobs are being lost, I fear most for our kids and their kids and their job prospects in this fastest growing industry, which is growing faster than tourism. It is interesting that the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) is in the chamber because he often says, quite rightly, how important tourism is to Australia. The communications industry is equally important, and there are no safeguards in the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 in relation to that. I think it is an absolute tragedy.We will plot the demise of these industries from the day this legislation is given royal assent. I hope it never happens because I think it will be a tragedy. All the solid work—not so much that the previous government put in—that these firms put in, that Telstra and Optus put in, will come to nought. We will again no longer be the lucky country seizing opportunities as they present to us. We will be the careless country, avoiding the opportunity to seize and expand on an opportunity that has already been created.I promised myself that I should report at least one letter I have received on this issue. It was from a constituent who said, `I note that the Prime Minister is so proud about the ordinary people of Australia becoming shareholders.' I have no difficulty with that proposition, and in fact I quite welcome it. But the constituent said in the letter to me, `If this is so important and such a high priority on the Prime Minister's mind, why doesn't he demutualise Telstra?'—that is, from the remaining two-thirds give to every Australian what they already have, man, woman and child. Instead of the indirect way all Australians currently own two-thirds, give them the shares. I would be particularly interested to listen to the learned and thoughtful member for Leichhardt to hear his reasoned arguments about why we should not demutualise. But I said I would put that on the record.I want to finish on this point: we have not in our deregulations previously, or the government in their privatisations, got consumer issues right. There is no doubt that, if you look at the CoTs problem with Telstra, or at small business, medium sized business, ordinary householders and farmers dealing with such a large corporation, there is an issue of unequal power. I think now that we are completely privatising Telstra, we need to embrace the Ombudsman back as a public ombudsman but funded by the industry.More particularly, I think there ought to be an annual licence renewal process whereby ordinary citizens of this country and their representatives can bring these large corpora tions to public account. We do not have that at the moment. Although we have Austel—the Australian Telecommunications Authority, as it now is—which I think does a particularly good job, we do not have that annual public accountability. As I said throughout my speech, I am surprised at how the backbench on the government side have allowed the Prime Minister and the executive to rush into the flush of full privatisation without giving any thought at all to the consequences for their own constituencies, immediately and in the longer term. I oppose the bill.17:14:002664Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I stand here today to give my conditional support to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . In accordance with the federal government's policy, this bill will make possible the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra by amending the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 to repeal the provisions which require the government to retain two-thirds of the equity in the company. Importantly, the bill will also amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce penalties of up to $10 million if phone companies fail to comply with directions from the Australian Communications Authority to rectify poor performance in meeting customer service guarantees.I stand before you representing the federal seat of Leichhardt—an area of Australia that, if the opposition's rhetoric were true, would likely be one of the most affected electorates in Australia. It is on this point of regional Australia and its response to the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra that I have a great interest in rising to speak today.Since the government announced the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the opposition, because of its policy void, has targeted the bush with misinformation about the consequences of the Telstra sale. The problem with the opposition speaking on behalf of regional Australia is that it does not represent regional Australia—not at all. People in the bush know this and there was no clearer indication of this than the last election, when the bush totally rejected Labor. The national electoral division profiles suggest that Labor holds three seats nationally with a demographic rating of rural. How can Labor know the concerns of the bush when it lacks the basic understanding of rural people and the issues that confront them? That is why this debate over the sale of Telstra should be above politics. It should be about the facts.People's fundamental right in the 21st century is to be able to communicate, and their ability to succeed in small business depends on their ability to communicate. That is why I said at the outset that this is a bill that I give my conditional support to. I agree with observations that the provision and extension of services to rural Australia still leave a lot to be desired for all those people living in the far north. There is certainly much to be improved.I will give a couple of examples. Recently a property just out of the Cape York town of Laura had to wait 10 weeks for a technician to come up and fix a simple fault. When he did eventually arrive, it took all of about 15 minutes to repair the fault. But for 10 weeks they were without a phone. I know of instances in Cairns where people are still waiting. They applied for a telephone connection in January. We are now into April, and they are still waiting for the provision of that service. In relation to mobile services in Far North Queensland—I made this comment in my maiden speech—within three kilometres of the Cairns CBD you cannot access some mobile services.But these problems have not just surfaced. I can remember in another life some years ago waiting for months and months for Telstra to come out and connect a phone on a property that I was involved in about 200 kilometres north-west of Cairns. There have been numerous other examples of where Telstra certainly showed a tremendous amount of complacency in and lack of commitment to rectifying the problem.The member for Chifley (Mr Price) made the comment that the legislation in force prior to the privatisation gave government the power to enforce the compliance of these services. Clearly there was certainly no will on the part of our predecessors to enforce that, because the situation has been very poor for a long time. If you want a further example of that, you only have to look at the number of CoT cases—casualties of Telstra—that have arisen in this country over a very long period of time, some of them very sad cases. All of those cases arose at a time when Telstra was totally controlled by the bureaucracy. As the member for Chifley mentioned, it was within the control of government to fix that problem; but clearly they did not do that. To suggest that going down another track could in some way be a disadvantage is a nonsense. Provided the proper checks and balances are in place, we will certainly be able to enforce those provisions.The other thing we have now that was not in place before is choice. That is going to make a big difference. Clearly it has already, when you look at the drop in rates and the competition it has created. I believe that will continue to be a very significant encouragement for Telstra to maintain its game. If it does not, quite frankly, it will lose out to its competitors.As I said, my support firstly lies in the government fulfilling its commitment to making sure that the services in the bush are improved and that the communication companies which perform poorly are prosecuted. That is why I strongly support the government's initiative to strengthen the penalties for non-compliance under the Telecommunications Act—separate legislation that binds Telstra and other companies to conditions set by parliament on their commitment to the bush. Under the proposed amendments, the fines for a company with a history of delay and/or non-performance will be up to $10 million. There will of course be a facility to allow people that feel aggrieved to be dealt with fairly. It does not mean that the individuals will have to take on the might of Telstra. They will be able to use a mechanism that will represent them and their grievances. Provided it is set up appropriately, I am sure it will be in a position to address those problems.It will certainly ensure the right of people in Cooktown, Weipa and even Thursday Island to receive a service equal to the people in Sydney—something that the phone com panies must be made to adhere to. These service obligations include a customer service guarantee about the length of time the phone company will take to make a connection or rectify a fault and, if this does not happen, an entitlement to individual compensation; a guarantee to turn up to appointments on time and again, if this does not happen, a guarantee of compensation; access to a standard telephone service and access to payphones within a legally specified time, regardless of where in Australia you live or work, with the cost subsidised by phone users in the city as part of the universal service obligation; local call prices in regional areas may not exceed the revenue weighted average local call price in major capital cities; untimed voice and data calls, with the most remote 17,000 Telstra customers continuing to receive a rebate on their pastoral call spending; maintenance of the price cap regime, which means the total cost of Telstra's average price across a basket of services must keep falling every year; and a commitment to keep the universal service obligations in line with changing technology.My second condition is that the proceeds of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra be used to retire a very significant amount of our public debt. The government has repeatedly highlighted the economic benefits that this bill will provide to all Australians by reducing our national debt from the historically high levels created by the opposition. This is the difference between a government with policy and one that is void of policy. Labor is willing to create the debt but not willing to implement a positive initiative to reduce that debt. The economic benefits are very clear. When Labor came to power in 1983, Commonwealth debt was $9.7 billion, or 5.6 per cent of GDP. After 13 years, the debt had risen to some $95 billion, or 20 per cent of GDP. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has the honour of being the worst finance minister on record, in two years presiding over an increase of some $26 billion of debt.This is a classic example of the difference between us and the economic Einsteins on the other side. No prizes for guessing who in this House has had business experience. The mob on the other side highlight their limited vision through their focus on their union backgrounds. If they had any experience in business, they would not have allowed the country's debt to reach such a point. Instead of rejecting the bill, the opposition should be embracing it to turn around the mess that was left for the coalition to fix.The sale of Telstra will enable the government to increase its reform process of the national finances which could reduce Commonwealth debt by 40 per cent, allowing the country to return to debt levels of the prosperous times of the 1960s, with a GDP ratio of four per cent. Imagine the benefits to all Australians.A lot has been said about the loss of revenue from Telstra. Nothing, however, has been said from the opposition benches about the fact that Australia could have been $1.5 billion better off last financial year through savings on interest payments. Unlike Labor, with its windfalls from privatisation of both Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank which were squandered in feeding interest groups and unsustainable social agendas, this government will not burden our children and grandchildren with debts accumulated through excess and self-indulgence.It is my personal belief that the full privatisation of Telstra will create true public ownership of Telstra. Telstra will be fully accountable to its shareholders and its customers in a very competitive marketplace. What could be more public than giving ordinary Australians a chance to gain a further stake in Telstra? You would think that Labor would agree that this is a positive step. This puts the opposition at odds with 92 per cent of Telstra employees who became shareholders at its first offering and some 600,000 average Australians becoming shareholders for the first time. I see this as true public ownership.Those on the other side suggest that the only effective way to operate Telstra is through a government controlled bureaucracy. I suggest that this is an absolute joke. This is certainly at odds with the world's best practices overseas. Countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Canada and New Zea land have all embraced private ownership with community safeguards as a way to deliver the most efficient and responsive communications network.Recently there was some suggestions of likening the Telstra sale to the problems associated with the New Zealand power authority as a privatised company. It should be put on the record that the New Zealand power company is in fact a government bureaucracy and certainly could not be compared with a private company.There is no fear that Australians will lose control of Telstra either. The ownership structure of Telstra will continue in Australian hands with the government setting Telstra ownership at no more than 35 per cent foreign owned and no single interest group allowed to own more than five per cent. I think it is also important that the chairman and directors of Telstra are required by law to be Australian citizens.The sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra is a logical development, in my view. The government, unlike the opposition, is giving the people of Australia a choice—the choice at the next election to vote for the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra to proceed. Labor's record on this issue shows that it is in favour of privatisation by stealth.As I said earlier, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank are two good examples of Labor's true stance on the issue. They came in here and gave an absolute total commitment that under no circumstance would either of those two bureaucracies be sold. Of course, we know history suggests something very different. I do not disagree with the route that they took on that. Nevertheless, their position is quite hypocritical as the sale of Telstra should be no different from what they did with the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. The only difference between us is that we are prepared to put our cards on the table and be judged accordingly by the Australian people, who will make the final decision as to which way we are likely to go.I look forward to the prospect of the people of regional Australia seeing a very big increase in the current levels of service delivered by Telstra and other communications companies. I think it is fair to say that, while those opposite stand here and make noises about concerns in the bush, communications have been in this country for a good many years—telephones have been invented for a long time and Australia has certainly had the benefit of the use of that equipment—but I can tell you that huge areas in my electorate have absolutely basic access to these services in 1998.That shows that over the years a government-owned instrumentality has certainly not delivered services into these areas and I believe that, with the privatisation of it, with the embracing of all the new technology and with the regulations in force, we might—at long last—start to see an opportunity of getting some equal service into our more remote areas. I certainly look forward to it. I think this is an opportunity for rural Australia to stake its case for improved services and for the coalition to deliver a strengthened universal service obligation through tough new penalties for non-compliance.One of the other things that has been raised has been the suggestion of massive job losses. Again, I suggest that it is an absolute nonsense to think that privatisation is the cause of job losses. There has been a downloading of jobs in Telstra for many years. The real culprit, of course, is called `technology'. As we have major technological advances, the reality is that there is a need for greater skill but fewer hands. As a consequence, if the public—whether it be metropolitan or rural Australia—is going to demand improved services and improved technology, that is going to cost jobs. But the reality is that for those people who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs in one area opportunities are opening up in other areas where they are able to be trained to take on other skills.To suggest that privatisation is going to cause this problem of job losses is an absolute nonsense. The only way that we are going to guarantee that we can continue to create larger amounts of jobs in a communications organisation such as Telstra is by going back to the days of Alexander Graham Bell and, as one of the members said here earlier today, starting to roll out copper wire where you have a need for that type of volume of work force.So, as we go into technology, I can assure you that the skills are going to be greater but, unfortunately, the jobs are going to be fewer. That is what we pay for progress and, as I say, job opportunities are opening up in other areas which I am sure that the people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to continue with Telstra will be able to access. Of course, all the training programs that we have initiated—that actually work—are going to give those people the greatest opportunity to access those jobs. They will not be on the merry-go-round that they have been on in the past.I feel that the sale of Telstra will not mean its demise but—quite the opposite—its rebirth, with it delivering greater levels of efficiency and customer service. I commend the bill to the House.17:34:002668Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Labor believes that Telstra should remain in public ownership and, in the way in which we opposed the sale of the first third, the simple reality is that we cannot afford to lose the remaining two-thirds. In government, our privatisation of Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank involved publicly controlled companies operating in a very competitive environment. Many other players in these industries provided the services. But in the case of Telstra we are talking about the communications network for the nation: it is an essential service and a virtual public monopoly. A private monopoly will not and cannot have the same interest in meeting the community service obligations, and that is why we oppose the further two-thirds sale.If Telstra is sold, we will see within a very short period of time timed local calls, community service obligations thrown out the door and 35 per cent ownership by seven overseas telecommunications companies—with no guarantee that the 35 per cent will not be watered down at some future stage, aside from the word of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), which is worth less than nothing these days.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 75 I take offence at that. I think it would help the House if the member desisted from using that kind of language.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I invite the honourable member for Hotham to withdraw those words.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The sensitive little Abbott. Abbott and Costello! This is the comedy team! I will withdraw, in the interests of getting this on the record.Full privatisation will also result in the slow spread of new technologies, particularly to the regions, higher charges for new services and a society sharply divided between the information rich and the information poor. This bill repeals the minister's right to give Telstra directions in the national interest. Without this sanction, Telstra will act in the interests of its shareholders and its creditors, not the public's and not those of the people in rural and regional and remote Australia. Finance minister Fahey admitted as much last week when he told Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National that the ministerial direction:. . . is not [in the] interests of minority shareholders . . . that type of direction . . . cannot be persisted with when the Government owns less than 50 per cent of the shares. It's not fair to the minority shareholders.Senator Alston, while reneging on his promise of jobs for Tasmania to secure support for the sale of the first third, said this yesterday:If you think that I can make promises on behalf of Telstra then you have another think coming.If he cannot and will not do it with two-thirds control, what hope is there with zero control?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—None at all.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Absolutely. As the member for Hunter says, none at all. While the government remains the majority shareholder, it retains the capacity, through ministerial direction, to ensure that the dominant network provider continues to meet the government's social and economic objectives. The delivery of services both in terms of quantity and quality is a major role of government. The partly privatised Telstra has already failed the test. Last week the Australian Communications Authority released its Performance Monitoring Bulletin for the December quarter. It found that Telstra's new service provision since the one-third sell-off declined for nearly all customer categories. In particular, performance for country customers declined by nine percentage points.I want to turn also to the question of the universal service obligations. Under a fully privatised Telstra, the best guarantee the government is prepared to give to rural and regional communities through the universal service obligation is that they will receive a standard telephone service. All it has written into Telstra's universal service plan is that a standard telephone service is accessible in rural and remote areas. This is a service that will carry slow speed fax and data services that operate in the voice band. It does not support high speed data services such as ISDN which are not included in the definition of a standard telephone service or operate outside the voice band.The government's bill does not provide a single extension to the services which will be offered to rural and regional Australia under the universal service obligation. It is a further betrayal of regional Australia. It does nothing to improve the range of telecommunications services to rural and regional Australia and it is not going to deliver broadband and on-line services to those communities. The latest technologies simply have not been written into the universal service obligation by this government. When new services come on line, there is no provision for ensuring that regional, rural and remote areas will get access to the same technologies.In the 1990s, the truth is that voice and data transmission are essential business requirements and are going to become more so in coming years with technology such as interactive video transmission becoming standard requirements, as that technology becomes widely available, as the prices drop, as the uptake rises and the community's expectations rise. The most relevant factor for the consumer is that these functions be readily available, and at an acceptable quality and affordable price. The sale of Telstra will mean that, in terms of the services provided to them, rural and regional communities will be frozen in time. The government has no intention of ensuring that the community service obligation keeps up with new technology. Again Senator Alston was sprung on this point last week when questioned in the Senate. He said:It is obviously a commercial service that Telstra operates. [Are you saying] everything that Telstra does should be made available to everyone? Is that what you are arguing? That is the ultimate in socialisation, isn't it? . . . You would tell them how to run the business and which services ought to be made available across the board.Ensuring services to the regions is not socialisation, as Senator Alston would have it. It is their entitlement, and a government not prepared to ensure it is selling them out.Privatisation will inevitably place the ongoing provision of the universal service obligation under increasing pressure, along with other regulations, such as those on pricing, which are presently imposed on Telstra. Companies have obligations to shareholders to provide the best possible return on their investment, and the best possible returns do not come from the smaller regional and more remote communities. Over time, abandonment of these obligations is inevitable or will only be provided at a huge cost to those wanting the service. Either way, the regions miss out. The threat of the $10 million fine that the government has paraded around will not change it.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It is a farce.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is a farce, because the fine itself can only be levied against existing obligations. There is no commitment to the new technologies and no commitment to new obligations. The $10 million fine means nothing in relation to the sorts of things we are arguing for. There is no point in increasing the penalties without a parallel commitment to increase the obligations over time, let alone the apparent dilution which is currently under way.Under the government's current legislation, the Telecommunications Act 1997, there is no obligation for Telstra or any other telecommunications carrier to provide untimed calls for data to business customers. Labor supported an amendment in 1997 to give an ironclad legislative guarantee that both businesses and residential customers would have access to untimed local calls for both voice and data. The government voted against the amendment and it was lost. Under a fully privatised Telstra, it is only logical that timed data calls for business will become a reality. Timed data calls would send some small businesses to the wall, and introducing STD-like charges on the Internet would see many small businesses shy away from using the technology. In rural and regional Australia in particular, time charging local fax calls would be a disaster and a significant additional cost for these businesses. If as a government you are serious about encouraging economic development, the most important ingredient is infrastructure, and one vital element of infrastructure is communications technology. The new approach being proposed means less access and availability and higher charges. Regions and their economic development needs will be the losers.A great Australian success story has been the outstanding performance of our service and manufacturing industries over the last decade, and at the very heart of that export performance has been the Australian telecommunications equipment industry. We have a dynamic electronics industry that is innovative, forward-looking and has a commitment to excellence and an established research and development base. Telecommunications equipment industry development arrangements assisted in the growth of a successful and expanding manufacturing and export industry. It directly employed 10,700 people in 1995-96—an increase of 21 per cent over 1992-93; a huge growth in employment. Exports have also grown strongly since 1988-89, with total value increasing fivefold from $100 million to $606 million in 1995-96—again, the latest figures available.This is a significant positive contribution to both employment and improving our trade balance. But where did the growth come from? According to the Industry Commission:The single most important influence on the development of the local telecommunications equipment industry has been Telstra—through its role as regulator of the telecommunications network, its purchasing behaviour, its dominance as a buyer of many products and its product marketing functions.Telstra had always seen its role as being to foster a vigorous telecommunications manu facturing and development capability in Australia. But with the move to increased competition, which occurred under our government, we strengthened that obligation, that commitment, to ensure that the other carriers as well as Telstra had a formal industry development plan as a condition for holding a licence in 1991.The telecommunications equipment industry in Australia is sustained by Telstra's purchasing arrangement, and the commitment of all carriers to the local equipment industry is the product not of the free market but the prudent application of public policy; an interventionist industry policy for the sector. Telstra in its current form has demonstrated a capacity to build networks of suppliers and then pull them through into export markets. Telstra directly contributes to the technological infrastructure of the country by funding cooperative research centres, graduate scholarships and its fund for social and policy research in telecommunications.The risks to local manufacturing if this bill proceeds are dire. The domestic market share for the local industry will fall if the purchasing patterns of the carriers change. The foreign shareholders allowed in under this bill will influence Telstra's behaviour in export markets and thereby diminish opportunity for Australian suppliers. This has been the overseas experience. When local preference arrangements in the UK ended, that country's trade deficit in information technology increased. The subsequent privatisation of British Telecom led to the carrier emphasising short-term commercial returns at the expense of research. In New Zealand, privatisation in the telecommunications industry has laid waste to that country's telecommunications manufacturing industry.This government has no plan for the telecommunications industry. Where is the strategic action plan proposed by David Mortimer? Where is the plan promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)? There is nothing from the government to support the manufacture of its other announcement—digital television equipment—despite the potential bonanza that could flow to Australian manufacturers from the 2001-08 change over. With the decision to introduce digital TV, we should be aiming to become a net exporter in digital technology, service and equipment, rather than being a major importer of foreign goods.At worst, the government expect support for the privatisation of Telstra and will worry about a plan for industry later. At best, they are playing catch-up politics, but without the same leverage we had in place. Telstra has already reduced its work force. The loss of 16,400 jobs in the past 18 months helped deliver Telstra's interim net profit—$1.6 billion—but at what cost to communities? Many of those jobs have been lost in rural and regional communities—lines staff and technicians, for example. That was the experience in the UK immediately British Telecom was privatised and again in New Zealand, where we saw massive job losses and the consequent increase in difficulties being experienced by customers.This bill also allows foreign owners to take up to 35 per cent ownership in Telstra. Individual holdings are limited to five per cent each. What that means is that seven owners could take a 35 per cent stake in Telstra, giving significant influence and, dare I say, effective control to overseas interests. Overseas shareholders will have no interest in supporting the Australian telecommunications industry. It will mean a reduced role for Telstra in export markets, in research and development and in buying Australian made equipment. And how long will the 35 per cent last? In 1991 and 1992, Labor granted Optus and Vodafone carrier licences which included foreign ownership restrictions. In August of last year, this government announced that it would do away with any foreign ownership conditions for our second and third biggest carriers. If that is its commitment to Vodafone and Optus, how long before it will give away foreign ownership restrictions on Telstra?Part of the claimed benefits from the sale of Telstra is the so-called social dividend, but that is utter fiction. A government-owned Telstra can provide a dividend stream which will produce at least an equivalent social dividend from the enormous dividends that Telstra declared this year—$1.5 billion to the government, with the expectation of it being $2 billion to $2.3 billion next year. Why is it that useful social projects cannot be funded from a set-aside to this dividend stream if that is the argument being pursued? The truth of the matter is that, with respect to the forgone dividend to the government—currently $1.2 billion supposedly obtained by the sale and the consequent debt reduction—on a range of growth projections that have been put forward by a number of experts in this field, we will achieve the crossover between the loss of dividend and that so-called benefit in 2002-03 or 2004. Where is that in terms of lost dividend to the nation for the rest of our lives?In conclusion, Telstra is Australia's largest government owned asset, and it is part of Australia's social infrastructure. It provides nearly 90 per cent of the nation's telecommunications services. The total privatisation of Telstra will see the transferring of a virtual public monopoly to a private monopoly whose commitments are to its shareholders, not to its unprofitable customers in rural, regional and remote Australia.Since it was elected, this government has pursued one idea with perhaps more determination than any other: the idea that there is no role for government in regional Australia. It has done everything in its power to vacate the field and leave rural and regional communities to sink or swim. The sale of Telstra is but the latest act in the coalition's betrayal of regional Australia. Labor, for its part, sees a clear role for the government, and for this reason we oppose the sale of any more of Telstra. We will ensure continuing government control delivers the communication services, taken for granted in the cities, which the regions deserve. We will oppose the bill.17:54:002671Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—As a member who represents a large rural electorate of some 316,000 square kilometres—almost equivalent to 40 per cent of New South Wales—I enthusiastically welcome the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . This bill proposes to sell the final two-thirds of Telstra and to transfer the ownership of Telstra, in full, from the government to the people of Australia so that they can own it individually.We are going about this in a proper, transparent and honest way, which contrasts with the approach the previous government took when they privatised a whole host of government-owned institutions. I well remember their promises that they would not privatise anything, but they went ahead and privatised Qantas, the AIDC, CSL and so on. They faithfully promised they would not privatise any of the Commonwealth Bank, but then privatised the first 30 per cent of it, then another 20 per cent, and then they went ahead and privatised the remaining 50 per cent. So let's not have any of this cant and hypocrisy that they would not privatise Telstra if they were in government today. In fact, it was they who kicked off the privatisation of the communications industry when they allowed in Optus and other companies like Vodafone. We applauded and supported those moves in this House. This confected opposition to our bill is only for the sake of it. They are pretending that they are opposed to it when they know full well, in their heart of hearts, that they would be jumping on this if they had won the last election.Since we sold a third of Telstra back in 1996, we have been able to expand the universal service obligation which had been allowed to languish for 13 years under the previous government with no updating whatsoever. The old universal service obligation virtually only entitled people to a private phone connection, the ability to make untimed local telephone calls and access to a pay telephone if they were in an area of some population. We have been able to expand that greatly since the one-third privatisation, contrary to what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean), was saying. We brought in the rural telecommunications infrastructure fund of $250 million, which has allowed the Networking the Nation program to be initiated. The second tranche of programs was announced only a few days ago. On top of that, we are upgrading exchanges to an ISDN standard. The previous government was going to allow that to take place at a very leisurely pace, which would have taken well into the next century. We are speeding up digitisation everywhere, and we have already expanded the untimed local call area. I think the previous government had forgotten that there were 17,000 connections in Australia—4,000 in my electorate—which could not make an untimed local telephone call. They were on the pastoral rate, which meant they had to pay 25c every 4½ minutes and were restricted as to the number of calls they could make. We have already brought in a system whereby these people will be entitled to a rebate on their telephone bill of $160 a year which they will receive in four quarterly payments of $40. I hope that we will be able to expand on that with the social bonus that will flow from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, as we have already done in a number of other areas. With mail deliveries, we have now guaranteed that every person in Australia is entitled to a minimum of two mail deliveries a week, which has been helpful to quite a number of people who live in the remote areas of my electorate. These are very positive things which have been delivered already within the first two years of government.On top of that, since the one-third sale of Telstra we have been able to bring in the price cap, which means that the price for Telstra services must come down by an average of 7½ per cent a year, less inflation. With inflation running at such a low rate under the good economic management of the coalition government, this will mean that prices will come down an average of around six per cent or more this year.As well as that, we have been able to speed up the mobile phone coverage of Australia, though I am the first to admit this is still too slow. I hope that this will speed up with the two-thirds sale of Telstra. I realise the LEOS and MEOS—the low-earth orbiting satellites and the medium-earth orbiting satellites—will start to cut in from September this year, although, admittedly, the price for my average constituents will be far too expensive because you will need something like $5,000 for the handpiece and $2.95 per minute for a call. Nevertheless, once we get it in there we will see the prices come down rapidly as we have seen with all the other technologies. That is a step in the right direction.On top of that, despite the fact that we were locked in by the previous government to get rid of the analog mobile phone service across Australia by the year 2000, the coalition is already negotiating with companies like Vodafone, which had signed those contracts and had committed hundreds of millions of dollars to getting their system in place for digital mobile phone coverage. There are something like 420 towns in country Australia where the digital coverage will extend by a radius of only about 10 kilometres to 15 kilometres from the towers, according to the terrain, and where the analog service is already going out 30 kilometres to 50 kilometres from the analog tower. It has already been agreed with Vodafone to allow the analog coverage to stay in place in 155 of those towns. We are still talking about the other 265 towns, and we believe we will be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with those.As well as all this, we have brought in the customer service guarantee, which means that, if you want Telstra to install or repair your phone, or if you want to make an appointment to have Telstra do either of those two things, it has to do it within a certain period of time, otherwise it will incur a penalty. That penalty will be a month's rent for each unit of time that it exceeds what it originally agreed to do.Unfortunately, some of those time frames are based on what the previous government had put in place, based on what they would like to see. For example, if you live in a town of more than 10,000 people, you can have your phone installed within a week of requesting it, or you can have a fault repaired within one working day. But would you believe that, if you live in a much smaller centre, the time for a connection runs out to 27 months. I had not realised just how bad this was. One of the great things about the coalition bringing this bill forward is that it has started to highlight how tardy some of these requirements are.I would like to read some excerpts from a letter that I have received from a lady who lives near Nyngan, which is in the centre of New South Wales, about 160 kilometres north-west of Dubbo. It is not way out in the boondocks. This letter is written by Louise Fisher. She and her husband, Stuart, live on Colane Station, only 40 kilometres out of Nyngan. She says:Dear Michael,. . . . . . . . .Six months ago we asked Telstra to provide an additional telephone line to our house.She gave the order number. She continued:After several inquiries I again rang 132200 on 1 April 1998, we were told by an operator called Toni (female) that it would be up to 27 months (since our first application) before it could be provided. I asked to speak to a supervisor.Mr Tony Fry rang back to tell us:1. Our phone is a radio service and although there are extra lines available they could not be used as the drop out units needed were no longer made.2. The drop out units would not be manufactured by anyone else.3. The only way that a drop out unit could be provided was that if someone who was already on a radio service no longer required a phone then they would transfer the drop out unit to the next person on the waiting list.It is an incredible situation that Telstra are not prepared to be out there manufacturing these units and were going to provide people like the Fishers with only a second-hand unit. She continued:4. We are 31st on a waiting list of 40 people waiting for drop out units in our area. He believed that our area was Riverina and Far West but was not sure.5. That there are several types of radio phones and he could not tell me how many people are currently using our type of phone.6. The time limit of 27 months was because the Austel Regulations require that if an additional/new line was not provided by this time then another method (such as a satellite phone) must be provided.7. It would not matter if it was a new or additional line. I asked him if a new home was built, or a new business established, then they too would have to wait up to 27 months. Mr Fry agreed.8. That the whole country was having the phone lines updated so that we could use the internet etc and that we would probably have to wait until they were doing that work. He didn't know when our area was due to be updated. 9. Mr Fry agreed that if our drop out unit was to break down then we would be without a phone to run our business for up to 27 months.She finishes up by saying, `We would be pleased if you could help us in this matter.' I rang Louise Fisher and spoke to her. It is an incredible situation which we have been tolerating in this country for the last how many decades. As I have said, if ever there was a case for livening up Telstra by privatising it, it must be this offhanded attitude it has had to people.I am pleased that the previous government took initial steps to privatise the industry. That was the correct method by which to go. I support what they did entirely. In fact, I found when Optus came into the industry the number of complaints I was getting about Telstra through my office started to fall away rapidly. Things that Telstra had in the past told me they could not do, particularly within certain time frames, they suddenly—magically—could do. Now the next logical step has to be taken. We do not have to just privatise the industry; we have to privatise Telstra, and really sharpen them up again.That is what this bill today is all about. The customer service guarantee that I have been talking about will, I hope, start to collapse some of those times taken for phone connections and for getting repairs done on household and business phones; and also there is the fact that the carrier is now required to meet its appointments within 15 minutes of when it says it will do so—instead of not turning up until the next day, the next week or whenever. I am pleased also that the legislation requires that fines and penalties of up to $10 million be imposed on Telstra to ensure that these things are put in place.If we are successful—as I am sure we will be—and can sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, not only will we have a social bonus that we can expend for the benefit of regional people but also we will be able to do other things. The social bonus, if you like, that flowed through from the sale of one-third of Telstra has made a number of these things possible that I have already listed. But we were able to do other things too. We made available $1¼ billion, a very large amount of money indeed, which we put towards the Natural Heritage Trust, which the ALP opposed, for some incredible reason.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It's a rort.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—The member for Hunter says that it is a rort. But, for heaven's sake, we have been able to do fair dinkum environmental projects in country areas that we had not been able to do before.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—In government-held seats.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—He complains about government-held seats. The fact of the matter is: the Labor Party federally holds only 1.17 per cent of the land mass of Australia. Can you believe it that 99 per cent of the land mass of Australia is not held by the Labor Party—it is an extraordinary percentage—and I am told that something like 10 per cent of these funds are being spent in Labor areas. If we are to have an inquiry into this, perhaps it should be because it is slanted towards the Labor Party. Here Labor is, with one per cent of the land mass of Australia, attracting 10 per cent of the funds. What an extraordinary situation. I think we have been far too generous to the Labor Party in this area—far too generous.On top of that, with the money that we have received by selling one-third of Telstra, we have been able to start paying off some of the debt that the Labor Party racked up when it was in power. Already we are saving $900 million a year in interest—$900 million a year; that is each year, every year, forever. What a great legacy to be able to pass on to our children and grandchildren.With the selling off of the other two-thirds of Telstra, various other figures have been bandied about, one being $40 billion. I am not sure that we can speak about such figures with any certainty because, as we know, stock markets fluctuate over periods of time. But, if we could pay off $40 billion of the debt that Labor racked up—and I understand that we are paying, on average, something like seven per cent interest rate on that debt—we would save another $2,800 million a year, each year, every year, forever.If you combine the two figures, that is in excess of $3,500 million a year that we would save, most of which would have gone out of Australia. That is because those borrowings—even if they are not from Australian institutes—are, in effect, taking up all the domestic borrowing that is available, and that is forcing the private borrowers offshore. So that is well in excess of $3 billion floating out of Australia that we have been able to save. And, of course, the taxation that Telstra pays, even though it is in private hands, is still paid. So there we are.In 1983, when Labor took over, the Commonwealth debt—as we heard from the Treasurer (Mr Costello) only today in question time—was about $9 billion, being about six per cent, 5.6 per cent exactly, of GDP. In 1996, when we took over, the Commonwealth debt had soared tenfold, even more than tenfold, to $96 billion, being 20 per cent of GDP. It was almost getting into the Asian financial difficulty scenario.Fortunately, we will be able to wind that back and, if we can make this sale, we can pay off 40 to 50 per cent, or more, of that debt. What a great thing that would be. Again, this is a case of the coalition taking over and straightening out Labor's economic mess. For that alone, it is worth privatising Telstra.When we sold the first third of Telstra, so popular was it with the Australian people that it was five times oversubscribed, for heaven's sake. We could have sold the lot in one hit. Even of Telstra's employees, who tend to be somewhat militant in some instances and highly unionised, we were pleased to see that 92 per cent took up the offer to their advantage—and we are going to offer them similar deals next time. Already those who have taken up shares have had a capital gain of about 100 per cent—and good luck to them. On average, there were about 13,000 Telstra shareholders in every electorate, 4,000 of whom had never before owned a share in their life. I think that was really fabulous.So the coalition, just by bringing this legislation forward, has focused on the deficiencies which still exist in Telstra. We have highlighted them, we have recognised them, and we have put up proposals and concrete legislation to improve and rectify them. These problems will not be solved overnight, but we are addressing them strongly. We are going to move forward to get a better deal for Australians, particularly regional Australians. This contrasts very sharply indeed with what the previous government did, which stagnated and ignored the deficiencies of Telstra. (Time expired)18:14:002675Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I am very pleased to see the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) in the House because I know that, unlike the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) and the member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), he shares the concern we on this side have about the privatisation of Telstra. Indeed, he is opposed to the privatisation of Telstra. I am very pleased that—unlike the members for Richmond, Parkes and Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin), and all those National Party and Liberal MPs who represent rural and regional seats—he has been prepared to speak out and defend his constituents. I congratulate him on doing so.I have a great deal of respect for the member for Parkes. He is retiring at the next election, and I wish him the very best in what he does in the future. I bet he is pleased that he will not be around to deal with the problems that will emanate from the total sale of Telstra. I am sure he will be pleased. He quoted so many of the problems being experienced by his constituents in terms of Telstra service, but he did not explain that that service has deteriorated since the partial sale of Telstra. He obviously has not read Diane Stott's contribution in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April, where she reports:The Telecommunications Ombudsman, Mr John Pinnock, has launched an attack on Telstra for its worsening customer service and called on the industry watchdog to introduce higher standards in the bush.Figures yet to be released by the Ombudsman show Telstra's performance has continued to deteriorate this year after a dismal performance in 1997, despite new laws requiring it to meet customer service standards.Further on in the article Mr Pinnock states:"I still think the poor old rural user is losing out and Telstra should be required to meet a better standard."He further continues:. . . recent figures from the Ombudsman showed the guarantee—that is, the guarantee given by the government that the member for Parkes referred to—which began on January 1, had failed to turn around Telstra's performance . . . The member for Parkes talked about the Natural Heritage Trust and the benefits stemming from it. I want to challenge him on his suggestion that the only reason the lion's share of the money is going to government-held seats is that they hold the majority of them.I point out that the average grant to non-government rural seats is around $300,000 and the average grant to government-held rural seats is around $700,000. I suggest that he can do his best to fiddle the figures, but he cannot walk away from the fact that that is a very true and accurate picture of what is happening. He talks about government debt and what they have been able to do via the sale of one-third of Telstra and what they will be able to do in terms of government debt with the balance of the sale. As the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) quite rightly pointed out in his contribution to the second reading debate on this bill, the growth in the dividend over the next four or five years—on average around 15 per cent—will mean that the loss of dividend will far outweigh any savings in debt reduction. So there is no benefit to the taxpayer.I must admit that one of the things I found disappointing about the last federal election campaign is that the government's proposal to sell one-third of Telstra did not really bite in the electorate. We were running hard against it, and I have to admit that there did not appear to be a great deal of concern in the electorate about the now government's proposition to sell one-third. I think any post-election analysis will show that the electorate found comfort in the fact that two-thirds would remain in government hands. The government would still be in control, they felt, and they understood very well the role government can play in ensuring that community service obligations continue in rural and regional Australia and in ensuring that the people living in those areas continue to enjoy the same benefits and the same services as those living in the cities. They understand the way that democracy works. They know that government can be held accountable, and they took a great deal of comfort in the belief that two-thirds of Telstra would remain in government hands.But they were very soon to learn, as we now know, that it was only a non-core promise to keep two-thirds of Telstra in government hands. It was simply another confidence trick by the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), a man desperate to get himself into the Prime Minister's seat. Who really believed that the member for Bennelong at the time did not have in his mind an intention to eventually sell the balance of Telstra? When the Prime Minister recently announced amid great fanfare the good news that he was prepared to sell the balance of Telstra, he got a bit of a shock. He discovered that Australians do understand the important role that government plays in providing those services; that they do understand the democratic process and the avenues they have available to them in terms of governments that renege on promises.What did the Prime Minister do last week? He, in hand with his communications minister and John Fahey, were in damage control telling the world that they were going to bring in very tough regulations with big fines to ensure that Telstra did not do the wrong thing by the Australian community, particularly the rural community. Big deal! As the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) and others have already pointed out, there is no effect. The quote I just read out from the Sydney Morning Herald proves that the guarantee already in place is doing nothing, and the same can be said of the threats of big fines because you cannot put in place those fines for telecommunications technology that does not yet exist.I can assure the House that those people living in the regions, those people living in my electorate in Cessnock, in the Upper Hunter, in Beresfield and in other areas are not buying the line either. They have seen so many broken promises from this government that they take the Prime Minister's word at face value. They assume all of those promises to be nothing more than non-core. They also know that you cannot legislate to guarantee technologies that do not yet exist. Why would they not be sceptical following the finance minister's radio interview with the ABC's Fran Kelly on 31 March, an interview in which he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what defines and what constitutes a standard telephone service and how the government would go about ensuring that those living in rural and regional Australia would continue to enjoy the same service as their city cousins. He ducked and weaved on every question. I recommend that radio interview to those who are really interested in how the government has failed to guarantee that the bush will be protected.Let us take a look at the last attempt to make such guarantees. Does anyone remember the standard telephone review group? That was the panel with 10 experts drawn from Vodafone, Telstra and the National Farmers Federation. They were going to constantly review what constitutes a standard telephone service in this rapidly changing industry. It also enjoyed the contribution of Mr Jock Given, who is the well-known expert from the Communications Law Centre at the University of New South Wales.Remember what that review group recommended? It recommended a standard of standard telephone service, which Professor Henry Ergas estimated would cost the industry about $2.5 billion. But, of course, Professor Ergas did not like the idea. He felt that the burden on Telstra would affect the price the government would gain for Telstra. Members might recall that Henry Ergas was also a member of the review panel. Reflecting his concern about the recommendations put forward by the other nine members of the review panel, Professor Ergas issued his own dissenting report offering a much lower standard of standard telephone service.Well, surprise, surprise! Who do you think Minister Alston listened to? Who do you think Minister Alston thought had come up with the correct recommendation? Not the nine in majority, not the nine members of the committee, but the lone dissenting voice of Professor Henry Ergas. We now know the longstanding relationship which exists between Professor Ergas and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), and we now know why Professor Ergas was placed on that review panel. If the way they handled the first tranche of the sale is indicative, let us pray for rural and regional Australia in terms of how they intend to deal with ensuring that the bush is protected after the balance of the sale.I said in my second reading speech on the bill to put in place the sale of the first third that, if Menzies had privatised the Postmaster-General and put in place at that time a standard telephone service of the day, we would all still be turning that black handle on those old telephones. That is the point: you cannot legislate today for technologies of tomorrow. Professor Ergas's participation in the review group just demonstrates, in any case, how far the government will go to thwart any opportunity to increase those standards.This bill simply fails to ensure that rural and regional Australia will be protected. It also does not guarantee against nasties such as timed telephone calls. The Courier-Mail cartoonist I thought illustrated the whole issue very well. I hope it has not already been used in this second reading debate. I know I have not seen anyone use it. It is a very good cartoon that simply says it all. It depicts a farmer waiting on the telephone. In the bubble you see the voice coming out of the phone saying:`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 in any capital city press two and you will be answered shortly . . .. . . If you're a small business press three and you will be answered eventually by the next available operator . . .. . . If you're 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 five and you will be disconnected immediately.I think that pretty well summarises this debate on the bill to put in place the sale of the final two-thirds of Telstra.With other opposition members before me, I have committed myself to keeping my contribution brief on this bill. As you know, the government has put the gag on and is only allowing us eight hours debate on this very important issue. I will leave it at that and give my colleagues the opportunity to speak on this important bill. I just want to reinforce, as one of only a few members on this side who represent rural and regional seats, that this will be a disaster for those living in rural and regional Australia. We oppose it most forcefully.18:27:002678McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—What amazes me about the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is the reaction of the Labor Party. You would think they do not like a good idea. But it is my humble opinion, based on two years of close observation in this place, that when the opposition start running a scare campaign it is because they simply are scared.Anything that the Howard government does that is welcomed by the people of Australia is seen as the kiss of death by the powerbrokers of the Labor Party. It puts them further away from their primary goal—power at any cost. Therefore, a bill for the privatisation of Telstra has to be opposed and ridiculed at all costs. There goes any chance of constructive criticism. That is hardly fair on those who voted for Labor—the people they are supposed to represent.When the public is taking control of its own assets, it is entitled to know exactly what to expect. This government has made its intentions clear, unlike the previous government, which set about the privatisation of public assets on a scale never before seen in the history of federal government. During the 13 years Labor were in government the people of Australia were not consulted when Labor sold off public assets. I will include some of them: the Garden Island dockyard, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline, our uranium stockpile, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and Aerospace Technologies of Australia. And how could we ever forget the final two—the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas? All this was during the time the Leader of the Opposi tion (Mr Beazley) was their finance minister or a senior cabinet minister.Today the Labor Party speaks with a forked tongue. Today, having conveniently forgotten they told the people they would not sell off the Commonwealth Bank and then did so, they have the temerity to question this government's honesty. I want to remind the good people of my electorate of Griffith of the opposition of the Labor Party on the matter of the sale of Telstra. The Leader of the Opposition was a guest at a luncheon of Department of Finance and Administration officers in May 1994.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.KK6McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALL—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous2678267820:00:002678Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) from coming into the House forthwith and for a period not exceeding 15 minutes substantiating the scurrilous and cowardly claims made by Senator Robert Ray in the Senate last night and today.Quite frankly, we have had a gutful of the Labor Party making unsubstantiated, scurrilous and cowardly claims against honest people doing their job. We have had enough of a Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) who is not prepared to make the claims himself but sneaks off to the Senate and has these low-lifes in the Senate running these scurrilous campaigns against members in the lower house and members in the Senate. He does not even have the guts to substantiate the claims with the names and the evidence.This is a typical tactic of a Labor Party that has no alternative policies, no decent contribution to make to national life, no interest in the basic concerns of ordinary Australians, no interest in the concerns of those who are looking for a job, no interest in the concerns of small business and no interest in the concerns of Australian exporters who want a decent waterfront.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Tax reform.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It has no interest in tax reform. It is a Labor Party with no interest in any of the great issues facing the Australian parliament. So what do we get in return? We get these low, base and scurrilous smear campaigns. I say to the opposition: it is time you put up or shut up.Tonight we demand that the Leader of the Opposition come in here with his rabble behind him and with the muckraker from Hotham and the muckraker from Holt and substantiate their claims.Government members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And it is about time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Government members will restrain themselves.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The deputy muckraker walks into the House. I challenge him. If his leader does not have the guts to stand up and substantiate the claims, it is about time that the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) stood up for his responsibilities and substantiated the muckraking of his muckraking colleagues in the Senate.In the last week or so we have had the Labor Party muckraking on every issue. We have witnessed some of the worst racist slurs we have seen in Australian politics. We have had absurd and ridiculous claims against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). Now today and last night Senator Robert Ray dips in again to his bucket of muck to attack honest members.Government members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Here is another one of the muckrakers—another one of the incompetent frontbenchers from the other side. The latest allegation from Senator Robert Ray is about two unnamed members, one apparently from Queensland and one from South Australia—with no evidence to support it, not a skerrick of evidence.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—Another liar!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for the Northern Territory!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—If my colleagues were to give a description of every member of the Labor Party as they walk in, I would not complete my remarks. The allegation made last night is that a member of the federal parliament downloaded from a computer the letterhead from an accommodation house and used that letterhead to fill out claims which were to be apparently fraudulent and made against either the tax office or otherwise.There was another claim made by Senator Robert Ray. We believe his people have been backgrounding. This is part of the smear campaign. Where they are not prepared to say it themselves, they send their lackeys up into the press gallery and they name names and make claims and allegations which cannot possibly substantiate it. Tonight on the television we saw the documentation, apparently said to be from the particular accommodation or hotel. In fact, it was said to be the Blue Shades Motor Inn in Maryborough. What they showed on the television was an extract of the Blue Shades Motor Inn account or documentation which you get upon staying there and paying an account.We have been in contact with the proprietors of the Blue Shades Motor Inn and asked them to tell us about their accounts, how long they have been running the business and how long they have had this letterhead. Firstly, they have not been using this name for 10 years, which is part of the allegation in the press gallery. In fact, this particular name has only been used by them for 12 months.It also appeared on television tonight—I have seen it myself—that this particular hotel had been affiliated with Best Western. We asked them a question about that. The advice that we have from Mrs Muller, who has written to the government tonight, is:. . . this motel has not been affiliated with Best Western for the last seven years.Furthermore—and this is very telling—from discussions with Mrs Muller it appears that the letterhead for her accounts is a different letterhead to that which has been put out by the Labor Party. So it is not even the same letterhead.The only evidence we have on this is two pieces of paper which the Labor Party have been prepared to show a TV camera but are not prepared to give anybody a copy of because they do not want anybody to be able to check their claims. That television clip tonight has been looked at by the proprietor and we have advice that it is not even her letterhead. In fact, this is the letter from Mrs Muller in which she says:I have seen the allegations on television tonight regarding travel rorting, and wish to state;(i) The account form shown is clearly not an account form from Blue Shades, as print and other details differ entirely. In addition, our accounts are not numbered.(ii) This motel has not been affiliated with Best Western for the last seven years.As a small business, my husband and I man the reception and have no recollection of female Liberal Members staying at this motel.We trust this is all the information required.It is all the information we require because it disproves the scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims that you have been making. It was also part of the claim that complaints have been made to the Liberal Party in Queensland about this practice. I have here a letter from the state director of the Liberal Party in Queensland which says:I have been made aware of a statement made by Senator Robert Ray in the Senate claiming that a Queensland Federal Member of Parliament scanned into a computer receipt forms of major hotel chains, and that the matter was, according to Senator Ray, the subject of a complaint to officials of the Queensland Branch of the Liberal Party.At no time has such a complaint been made either verbally or in writing to either myself as State Director, or to the State President of the Party about such a practice or about any Member of Parliament. I am not aware of any other office bearer of the Queensland Division of the Party having been approached on this matter.Indeed, the first that I and the State President have heard of the matter was when it was reported today in the media.Again, absolutely conclusive. These people have been lying; these people have been smearing; these people have been making unsubstantiated claims—and here is further evidence of the fact. In every possible way they have not produced any evidence. How do you know that this is just a political tactic? Did they take it to the police? Were they so concerned about it that they would take it to the police?DT4CREANMr Crean—That's exactly what they did.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Oh, sure! The scum of the Labor Party speaks from the other side.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I will give you the call in a moment. The Leader of the House will resume his seat.Mr Downer interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—We've got the `Ku Klux Klan' over here!Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Banks, I say to all members of this House that you are all responsible for the dignity of this House. Let us have some order.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I ask that the Leader of the House withdraw the word `scum'. He used the words `the scum of the Labor Party'. I take great exception to that and I regard that—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. Resume your seat.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a further point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) took exception recently to the use of the words `racist scum'. I would submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the word `scum' in relation to the Labor Party is unparliamentary.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am happy to withdraw so that we can hear from my colleague, the member for Wide Bay. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the next speaker, I would again like to say to all members of this House that this is a very important issue that is before us for consideration. I ask all of you to treat the House and the matter before the House with the dignity which it deserves.20:12:002680Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I second this motion and join the call on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) to come into this chamber and to explain the circumstances of the allegations made by Senator Ray. These allegations seem to be so low that even the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) was not prepared to trade in them in this House. We all know that he has been the master of the sewer. He has been the one who is always first to come up with these scurrilous types of allegations. But were these even too low for the member for Hotham? Were they even too low for the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson)? Yes. Late at night Senator Ray came into the other chamber and made comments of a scurrilous nature attempting to defame members of this House and members of the Liberal Party.I happen to know the Blue Shades Motor Inn rather well; in fact, I live only about one mile away from it. I drive past it every day when I go to work in my electorate office. In fact, it was not the Blue Shades Motor Inn at all this time 12 months ago: it was called the Maryborough Motor Inn. It seems that Senator Ray did not know that. His 10-year-old correspondence, we were told, had the Blue Shades Motor Inn on it. Let me tell you that not only was it not called the Blue Shades Motor Inn a year ago, it did not even have any blue shades! It has been extended and modified, and its name was changed to the Blue Shades Motor Inn less than 12 months ago. The correspondence paper which they use—old English style—looks absolutely nothing like the correspondence paper that the Labor Party has been showing around, displaying to all the media around the countryside.Another interesting point is that Wide Bay happens to be a reasonably secure National Party seat. Unfortunately, I do not get very many visits from Liberal Party members to my electorate—men or women. They are very welcome to come. I would love to have them from time to time. But I am sure that the Blue Shades Motel would go broke if it were relying on Liberal Party members of parliament to fill its rooms each evening. I hope that all this publicity for the Blue Shades Motel encourages people to visit, because it is a first-class establishment, one of the best motels in town. I am sure Mr and Mrs Muller, who run the motel, would be only too happy to welcome people from both sides of the House to visit the motel and to enjoy the hospitality.But that is not what the members opposite are about. That is never what members opposite are about. Their total interest always is the sewer—looking for the garbage; looking for things that have no substance whatsoever. These are the same sorts of desperate tactics that Labor engaged in over recent months and during the last election campaign, when they forgot the facts and tried to emphasise all their posturings and so forth about what was going on when they knew nothing about the circumstances of the case. This is another example of Labor Party members fishing around in the dark, late at night in the Senate.No member opposite had the courage during question time today to bother to raise these matters in this chamber, where the members are accused. Not even the member for Hotham could get out of the sewer long enough to ask those questions—not the member for Batman; not even the member for Banks (Mr Melham), even though he had plenty to say in question time. There was no sign of him raising these allegations in the chamber. They are the lowest of the low.There is no Leader of the Opposition here to answer the call. He again is showing totally inadequate leadership. He could not control the member for Hotham. He could not control the member for Batman. Tomorrow he is going to endorse the book of the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham), in spite of everything that is in it. But now he cannot even control Senator Ray, yesterday's man in the Senate. Yesterday's man in the Senate raises these sorts of scurrilous allegations. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this place and demand that Senator Ray produce the evidence or sack the man. Produce the evidence, stand up and be counted or withdraw and apologise to those people that he smeared through these scurrilous allegations.20:17:002681Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We have just heard the most hypocritical speech ever made in this parliament. The member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) calls on people to come in here and defend and sack. Where was the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in sacking Senator Parer? Where was the Prime Minister in allowing the parliament to apologise for the stolen children?Government members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—What do you do? You come in and make some allegation about substantiating claims made in the Senate.Government members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I tell you where those claims are going to be substantiated. They are going to be substantiated in the inquiry that you have sought. For those that do not know it—and the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) should—Senator Vanstone said today, `I have referred these matters to the Australian Federal Police. I have some reason to believe that they have been referred to the Australian tax office for investigation.' Indeed they have. They have been referred by us and by Senator Vanstone. Yet this crowd comes in and says that we should substantiate this, when we have substantiated legion claims against them—substantiated claims that show that the coal minister owns $2 million worth of shares in a coal mine; that show that the coal minister has received a dividend stream—Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I say to all members of the House that the standard of conduct at the moment is disorderly. I say to all of you that you should consider your own reputations and the dignity of the House. I appeal for order.UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—This speech is outrageous.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The speech is outrageous! The only thing that is outrageous is the Prime Minister's code of conduct, which is in tatters, and a minister that owns shares in a coal mine, gets $1.2 million in dividends and sets up the family trust to avoid the taxation. And you say we have got something to substantiate! What you have to do, Prime Minister, is enforce your code of conduct. You send your people into this place to grasp onto that gossamer thread to try to suggest that what we have been raising are unsubstantiated claims. When are you ever going to defend what we have substantiated? When are you going to defend your action in terms of hiding your directorship?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The challenge for this bloke is to put up or shut up. It is about time we had some substantiating of what they are saying.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The challenge for you is to shut up, because that is what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister, who went out on 15 October—LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—You've got the political morals of an alley cat.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the member for Paterson.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I ask him to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, and apologise.Government members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Members on my right! I again remind the House that the decision as to whether anything is offensive and should be withdrawn rests with the chair. On this occasion, I do not propose to take any action.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am astounded. We had the member for Swan (Mr Randall) come in and be forced to apologise for using the same terminology, and you sit there in the chair and do not require the same withdrawal from the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin), who said the same words. Is this the double standards we have to put up with in this place? We have already got them from that side of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I say to the member for Hotham that, if he had heard, because of the noise coming from both sides of the House, I—K26LATHAMMr Latham—You're a disgrace. It's no different from what he said.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before the member for Werriwa has an apoplectic fit, he might let me finish what I was going to say. If you had heard, you would know that I warned the member for Paterson. That is the only action I intend to take at this moment.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We are used to the inconsistencies of rulings, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take issue at that now because I do not have much time left. But what I will say to this Prime Minister—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Hotham has reflected on the chair and particularly your impartiality.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I certainly do take the point of order raised by the minister. I do believe that the member for Hotham did reflect on the chair, so I call on the honourable member for Hotham to withdraw.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I withdraw. The record will stand for itself in terms of the inconsistency. I do not reflect upon the chair; the record will do it itself.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Hotham's telling you that the record will show the inconsistency was another reflection on the authority of the chair, and he should be asked to withdraw again. It is an old tactic.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank you. I do not propose to take that action.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The only thing that has to be declared in this House is why the Prime Minister snuck in at the dead of night and resigned his directorship of the Menzies Foundation when he was lecturing his own frontbench about their obligations under his—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point of order is simple. This is a motion calling on the Leader of the Opposition to come in and explain why he has a senator making unsubstantiated allegations. The point of order is relevance. Quite simply, why can't the member for Hotham tell us why the Leader of the Opposition should not come into this House? That is the point he should be addressing.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Why can't the Prime Minister tell the Australian people why he hid his directorship in the Menzies Foundation and then gave them a $100,000 donation, against his code of conduct?TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 81 on relevance, the member for Hotham is digress ing from the matter which is under debate, which relates to unsubstantiated allegations that have been made in the Senate by Senator Ray.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. Resume your seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—When the House is quiet, I will call the honourable member for Hotham again.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Reith's ) be agreed to.20:30:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)82Abbott, 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. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. 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.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.39Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, 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. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Halverson, R. G. Sawford, R. W.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.Thomson, A. P. Holding, A. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Leader of the Opposition not being present, I call the Clerk.Bills2684r4822684Debate resumed.20:34:002684McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—As I was saying before the dinner break, today the Labor Party speaks with a forked tongue. Today, having conveniently forgotten they told the people they would not sell off the Commonwealth Bank and then doing so, they have the temerity to question this government's honesty. I want to remind the good people of my electorate of Griffith of the position of the Labor Party on the matter of the sale of Telstra. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was guest at a luncheon of Department of Finance officers in May 1994. During his address, he referred to the matter of selling government assets. He said:Asset sales allow the Government to maintain public services and benefits to the Australian people, while maintaining the deficit reduction strategy without increased taxes.In this same speech the Leader of the Opposition went on to confirm his and the Labor Party's support of the sale of government assets. He said:Despite some critics suggesting asset sales amount to `selling off the family jewels', they do not result in a loss of infrastructure, but rather a transfer of ownership.That is what the Leader of the Opposition said just four years ago. He did not refer directly to Telstra in that particular speech but he did the following month on the television program Meet the Press . The Leader of the Opposition said:Privatisation in the limited sense would work . . . I mean you could privatise Telecom if you set your mind to it.Now, of course, as part of Labor's fallback position, the scare campaign, we have a completely different story. Now the Leader of the Opposition is saying things like there are no benefits from the privatisation of Telstra and there are no benefits for competition. Is this the same man? One year there are benefits—the year the Leader of the Opposition is intimately involved in the sale of more government properties than in the history of any previous federal government; the next year, when they are in opposition, it is not a good idea. In fact, it is such a terrible idea that the Labor Party is going to block it in the Senate.It is quite alarming to see a party so obsessed with power that it will even turn on itself and deny its own policies. This action proves—as if there were any doubt—that Labor's only goal in opposition is to destroy—to heck with the good of the nation. We have seen this here today. Labor's habit of doing one thing when in government and saying the exact opposite when in opposition is becoming tiresome, to say the least. When I was a child it was called `telling a porky'. Therefore, as we cannot expect the needs and concerns of the nation to be addressed by the Labor Party, we must listen closely to the people of Australia to get it right. First, this government makes it quite clear that no further sale of Telstra will take place without an explicit mandate by the Australian people at the next federal election, as promised in 1996. Second, the coalition government is acutely aware of the concerns of the people that the sale will in no way diminish Telstra's standard of service. Instead, this government is setting up parameters to ensure that the service is not only maintained but improved.I believe it is important that Telstra remain an Australian company. This government will ensure, by law, that Telstra remains majority Australian owned. No single foreign interest will be allowed, by law, to own more than five per cent of Telstra. Aggregate foreign ownership is limited to 35 per cent. The chairman and the majority of the board have to be Australian citizens. Telstra's headquarters will, by law, remain in Australia. To all those people who have been sending me e-mails about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, I assure them that the MAI will not affect the government's ability to restrict the foreign ownership levels of Telstra—that is, of course, if we sign the treaty. The MAI will explicitly allow for restrictions associated with such privatisations. The MAI allows each country to nominate areas to be exempt from the agreement. This government has lodged 28 reservations which cover a whole host of areas, particularly including telecommunications. We will retain sovereignty on Telstra and cannot nor will not be overridden by any international agreement.Now that Labor sold the Commonwealth Bank, after solemnly promising it would not, it is opposing the sale of Telstra. But it does not really give any sound reason why. There is the standard Labor bogey that it will cost people their jobs. Why will it? It is well proven that competition brings growth, and growth means employment. I suspect these are the same political pessimists who said that the introduction of computers would put people out of work. Many of us can remember the dramatic union action which took place back in the 1970s, ostensibly to protect people against their perceived replacement by machines. When I look at the computer paraphernalia around my office, and I might add my home, and the number of people now employed in sustaining these machines, I am prepared to say computers created thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more jobs than they replaced.The communications industry is one of the fastest growing in the world. Telstra is hardly a static company. It will continue to expand its horizons, will continue to introduce new technology and will continue to outsource its services. Reducing the number of people on the payroll while employing more people out in the field is consistent with most companies in this day of information technology. If we use British Telecom as a guide, we see that this giant corporation reduced its employment by 7,500 over the last four years, but the British telecommunications industry created 19,500 new jobs as competition allowed for rival companies to expand their networks. (Quorum formed)More jobs have been the trend right around the world as countries privatise their communications carriers. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that employment in the telecom and cable industry in the United States has risen by nine per cent in the past five years. The privatisation of Telstra will allow Australians to be more than employees or users of Telstra; they will be shareholders with a say in the future of the company. Everyone, whether a shareholder or otherwise, will see improved services due to the competition created by this privatisation. This has been the pattern with Telstra and many other companies involved in information technology and communications.Telstra has to adopt modern procedures to offer the people of Australia the services they demand, but the government is not without power in this area. To ensure that all Australians receive the service they are due, the government has established a customer service guarantee. This is the first time such a guarantee has been established by a government, which begs the question: why was it not done before? Why didn't the Labor government consider it important to ensure Telstra customers had a voice? The coalition will ensure Telstra is legally required to meet service standards, and that means down to the nitty-gritty, such as the time taken to connect a new telephone service. Under this government's legislation, a faulty phone service must be repaired within one working day of the fault being reported or the provider has to pay the customer the monthly standard rental charge for each day it is late in repairing the phone service.I have seen criticism on this point arguing that Telstra can afford to pay such fines. They are missing the point. The government is aware that some carriers may be willing to pay the compensation rather than meet the standards set out in the bill, but we have upped the ante, and failure to comply with a direction will attract a penalty of up to $10 million. This government's publicly announcing that it considers Telstra's service levels to be unacceptable is a far cry from the previous government's inaction. This government says the service is unacceptable and introduces legislation and serious fines to ensure it must be improved.There is no hidden agenda here. But it is easy to see why the opposition have chosen a scare campaign—they expect the public to believe that this government plays by the same underhand rules as Labor does as a matter of course. I do not believe that Australians are that easily fooled. The Australian public responded with enthusiasm to the Telstra float last November, as did 92 per cent of Telstra employees. For many, it was their first investment in the stock market. But it is not just those who are now stockholders who will benefit from further privatisation of Telstra. The vast bulk of the proceeds of the sale will be used to help pay off the debt left to Australia by the previous Labor government. This will free up funds for those vital areas of social welfare such as aged care.This government is about creating jobs, freeing the people of Australia from their massive debt burden and creating funds for social welfare and welfare reform. The coalition is telling the people of Australia that it does not believe the business of government is to be in business. The business of government is to create an environment in which business can flourish. I believe transition to full private ownership will be of great value to all Australians. First, it will improve our economy. Second, it will create jobs due to competition and expansion of the industry. Third, Telstra will no longer belong to the government; it will truly belong to the people.20:50:002686Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Today is a day of shame for the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is day of shame because of what we have just seen in this House and the manner in which the decorum and prestige of the House have utterly disintegrated thanks to the manner in which government members conducted themselves in the debate on the suspension of standing orders. However, much more importantly, this is a day of utter shame for this House of Representatives because an Australian government has introduced the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 .We had one previous bill before us which was passed through this House and then the other. That was the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill. That bill resulted in one-third of Australia's full ownership being ripped away from the Australian populace at large. That dilution of ownership bill was about taking one-third of Australia's full ownership of the greatest public company we have from public hands and putting it into private hands and taking the public profit that was made and putting it into private pockets. This is a day of shame for this House of Representatives because this government is determined to sell the rest of the two-thirds of Telstra and this bill is the instrument with which it seeks to do this. It is determined to take away from all Australians the ownership of the existing two-thirds that they still have. It is determined to take that existing two-thirds from public ownership and the profits that are returned to the Commonwealth government and hand them over to private individuals and companies. This is a crazy policy. It is crazy not just now; it will still be crazy after the year 2002-03.In his second reading speech, the shadow minister for finance, the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), made a fundamental point on the crossover benefits to the government. From now until the year 2002-03, the benefit that would accrue to the government in money saved on interest as a result of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra would be positive. From 2002-03 into infinity, the return to the Commonwealth of Australia would be absolutely zero. The income stream which Telstra currently provides to the Commonwealth would be wiped away entirely by the bill that we have before us today. That income stream which is in existence now has been in existence for the whole history of Telstra. Through the dilution bill, we have already seen one-third of those profits whipped away from public pockets to private pockets. The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill totally destroys the income stream that should be coming back to the Commonwealth from the two-thirds of Telstra that it still owns—and not just for one, two, three, four or five years, but onward into infinity.We are not just talking about the current returns here. We are talking about the returns—into infinity—from an increasingly important and an increasingly profitable Telstra. The information economy in which we currently live, important as it is, is relatively minor and minuscule compared with the information economy that will exist in the next century. Just two to three years into the next century—not five years from now—the crossover point will be reached where it will not pay the Commonwealth of Australia to have sold all of Telstra, its biggest business. From that point on, the income stream will have disappeared and there will not be any positive benefits to the budget, just negative benefits. That situation arises because of the ideological approach that this government has taken to this most important and central feature: entities that are controlled and owned by the Commonwealth government. There is no more important business to the Commonwealth of Australia than Telstra. One-third should not have been sold and the next two-thirds should absolutely not be sold.The information economy will dramatically expand in the next half decade, and the half decade beyond that, well into next century. By the year 2030, 35 per cent of our gross domestic product will be in the information economy. A Telstra of the size it is now—still two-thirds owned by the Commonwealth government—would be bringing in massive returns by the year 2030 because the growth in the information economy will be much greater by then. Today is a day of shame for this House. If this bill proceeds from this place to the Senate, and if the Senate votes through this second tranche—this move from a dilution of public ownership to a complete whipping away of full public ownership of this entity—this nation will be not only inexorably and inevitably poorer in budgetary terms from the crossover in 2002-03 and in the services that could be provided to every Australian citizen in the telecommunications area, whether they live in metropolitan areas or in the bush, but also impoverished. With all of the history of Telecom and then Telstra behind us, we have been in a privileged position in maintaining first a full monopoly in telecommunications and now a partial monopoly—but still fairly full—in information infrastructure.There is not one chief executive officer of a major foreign company who would, in the same position that this government is in now, make the decision to sell an asset of this significance. If we asked Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft—who has a substantial business in the information area—to divest himself of his interest in the Microsoft company and break up that entity, would he do that? I don't think he would; in fact, he is seeking to increase the size of that company and to make its reach broader. If Bill Gates owned Telstra and you put to him the question whether any sensible CEO, or any government with almost total control over their information infrastructure, should privatise that entity if, within five years, they were to go into the negative instead of into the positive as a result of that sale, I can almost guarantee that he would not. Every entity in the multimedia sector and in the computer sector is seeking not to divest, not to break up, not to fragment, not to minimise, but to aggregate.It would be the dream of most CEOs in telecommunications companies worldwide to own an asset as significant as Telstra. No CEO with his head screwed on would say, `You should sell Telstra.' Telstra has the reach, the depth and the ability to provide for Australia's telecommunications needs. It can use the depth that it has within this economy to launch itself—as it has over the past years—into Asia to not only provide information infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure but also earn money for the Commonwealth of Australia. While most CEOs are attempting to aggregate, this government is attempting to disaggregate.This is the single most important bill that has been brought to this parliament in the last two years. The second most important was the previous Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill. This is about flogging off, for a short-term benefit, the most significant asset the Commonwealth has built up since 1901. It is an asset that has been used for the benefit of the Australian people. It is an asset that should continue to be used for their benefit.We face a situation here where the grandest and greatest company that has been built up in Australia, and which is fully owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, will be thrown to the four winds. Thirty-five per cent foreign ownership will have this end: all of the features of the current Australian information economy that are currently embedded into place—where, because of the guarantees, Telstra buys onshore wherever possible—will be obliterated. All of the elements of Telstra buying from Alcatel, Ericsson or Siemens—those companies based in Australia—will be fragmented. We will be left in a position where, instead of controlling our information infrastructure, it will be controlled by foreign hands. Thirty-five per cent of Telstra is effective control. Ask any multimedia baron in this country whether 15 per cent of an entity is effective control; if they answer truthfully, they will say, `Yes, 35 per cent is absolute control.'This bill should be denied not only in this House but also in the Senate, because this bill will rip to pieces the greatest business institution the federal government has put together, it will rip to pieces the great generator of Australian infrastructure into the next century, and it will completely fragment and destroy the federal government's ability to control the direction, scope and future of the information technology within this country. That is why this is a day of shame for this House. If this bill passes through this parliament—this most significant bill in the last two years—it will be to the unending shame of this coalition government and to the infinite regret of the Australian population.Given my time is short, I will end on this point: this bill should not be passed. Telstra should have remained in full public ownership, and now it should remain in two-thirds public ownership for the good of the nation and for the good of our absolute national interest now and our absolute national interest into infinity.21:04:002688Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—When I first walked into this chamber, it was perhaps one of the proudest moments of my life. It was an opportunity for me to represent the 135,000 people who live in my electorate and, in my view, to make a difference. I must also say that it is difficult being a member of parliament. Today of all days is a reminder of the fact that, whenever allegations are made by anyone on either side of the House about the conduct and activities of anyone who seeks to serve their community, it reflects on all of us. It is very difficult to still be committed to serve the people you are seeking to represent in the best possible way when their trust and faith in you is constantly challenged, not just by protagonists in the media but also by some of your own.As an individual, I seek to reassure myself of why I am here, through a commitment to good policy, to the right policies. That means sometimes policies are not popular. I as an individual and all of us in this chamber should never be afraid to promote policies that are singularly in the best interests of the nation but which may not be in the best political or superficial interests of a political party.I have no doubt that privatisation is still something that all populations around the world are not particularly comfortable with. I also have no doubt that governments in the 21st century will need to realign their focus. We as governments, as leaders, seeking to make a better community, seeking to improve the quality of life of those whose lives need improvement, through better provision of services, through the provision of a safety net—that has to be the focus of our activities.Tonight in the John Stuart Mill Society dinner, Senator John Tierney gave a speech about the forgotten people. He did not talk about what we as Liberals and most of the community know as Menzies' forgotten people; he talked about people with disabilities who had been and are forgotten in our broader community. He talked about people who are in gaol, who can never quite get out of that awful spiralling effect, the never-ending cycle of going into and out of gaol. He talked about those people who are the least advantaged in our community.I agree with the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) that this is singly the most important bill to come before this House. But there is one fundamental reason why we are doing it, and that is that this is in the best interests of the people whom we are here representing. We are doing so because no government in Australia should be involved in commercial activities when those activities could be carried out by the private sector.MG4LEEMr Lee—Like Australia Post.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I congratulate the former minister for communications the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who is here and was one of many Labor ministers for communications, because he and his colleagues created an environment in which we get competition in telecommunications. I take my hat off to you for the commitment you made over a number of years to break down the monopoly of the old PMG, or Telstra, in order to create competition in telecommunications. Because we have competition in telecommunications, people now are getting the benefits of it.The amendments to the Telecommunications Act that were introduced last year by the current Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, were the most profound step forward in generating competition in telecommunications. I take my hat off to the minister, considering what the net result of that has been. (Quorum formed) It has been through competition that we have delivered cheaper phone calls. It has been through the introduction of competition that we have delivered better mobile phone services. It is through competition that we have delivered better access for people in rural and remote Australia. It is through competition that we are delivering to every household significant benefits. The infrastructure that people are getting in their homes today is as important to them as the paved road or the railway was to every household at the end of the 19th century.There have been some side benefits associated with privatisation. It is not a new phenomenon. It is not an exclusive phenomenon for the Australian marketplace, because privatisation, particularly of telecommunications companies, has been around for some years. Governments have always argued on a philosophical basis whether you should nationalise major industries or whether you should privatise them.But the most important point about privatisation is: what do you do with the proceeds? If you adopt the approach of the Australian Labor Party, you will sell assets in order to fund your yearly promises. You will sell assets like the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Australian Airlines. You will sell those assets to pay for today's debts. You are not selling those assets to pay for yesterday's debts; you are simply making the interest payments on existing debt.With this bill, we are taking the most significant step forward ever taken by any Australian government to reduce the nation's debt. We have $100 billion of debt. With this bill, we are reducing the nation's debt by 40 per cent—$40 billion. It is not as though the Commonwealth government does not have any more assets. The Commonwealth government, like all governments, is asset rich. In fact, from back in the early seventies when we used to tax and spend around 20 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product every year, we now tax and spend around 27 per cent—and it got up to 28 per cent under the Labor Party. We are trying to bring it down a bit. But every day we are creating assets. The nation's capital, the real capital of the Commonwealth government, the real asset of the Commonwealth government is the social capital that we create—what we pass on to the next generation.There are two obvious ways that you can create wealth. One is through the generation of labour, and the second is by investing in the generation of labour. It is not some passe comment from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) when he says that he wants to create a nation of great share ownership. It is fact; it is real. It is more significant than the words of a former Prime Minister, Menzies, when he said that he wanted to have nation of home owners. In the case of share ownership you are investing in other people's labour. You are investing in the creation of wealth. That is what share ownership is about.Over the last few years—and I will give credit to the Labor Party where it is deserved—through privatisation in Australia, some of it out of distress created by state governments getting involved in banking, but in the opportune moments through putting into a competitive private environment assets like the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and so on, you have created and we have created a nation of great share ownership. The Commonwealth Bank has over 370,000 shareholders, GIO Australia has over 100,000 shareholders, and Qantas has 105,000 shareholders. Through competition in banking that developed over the eighties and the early nineties we now have demutualisation, with the National Mutual having over 400,000 shareholders. You have the AMP coming on board, which will have the single most profound effect, apart from Telstra, on the Australian Stock Exchange and share ownership levels in Australia.The AMP privatisation reaches deep into the public and says, `Here are your shares. For the first time you will have an opportunity to own shares. We are not asking you to put money for it. We are giving you the opportunity to invest in shares.' That is what the AMP demutualisation does. It is going to create hundreds of thousands of first-time shareholders. But the single most profound act of this government has been to create 600,000 first-time shareholders in the first tranche of Telstra—600,000 people who invested their savings, some of them part of their life savings.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Workers.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Workers; low income Australians as well. All Australians had an opportunity to invest, and 600,000 invested for the very first time. Some 1.8 million Australians have invested in Telstra. That is a profound act. When you look at the age profile of some of the people investing, it is the 35- to 44-year-old age bracket that has become the single biggest demographic age bracket of investors in Australia. They are the people who are going to live longer than the generation before them. They are the people who will have to provide for their retirement more significantly than the generation before them. They have taken the bold step of investing in their future. Importantly, the nation's young people are starting to invest as well. That is a source of particular pride to me, because they are saying, `I want to invest in the labour of other Australians. I really want to take a punt. I want to make a contribution.' That is particularly important.I do have some concerns about the bill. I will be perfectly frank. I have a concern about the fact that the chairman has to be an Australian citizen, given that the chief executive is not. I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the board have to be Australian citizens. I also have a problem with the restriction on foreign ownership at 35 per cent. Why? Because what you are doing is creating an unreal environment in share ownership. You are creating an unreal value on the shares. The value of every share on the Australian Stock Exchange should be regulated, constrained, enhanced by the value of the asset, the productivity of the asset and the growth in the asset's value. It should not be constrained by legislation, especially legislation that may govern from the grave.That is not a politically popular statement, obviously, and I understand politics, I would think. But the truth is that it is ruling from the grave. However, it takes a government of courage and political parties of courage—I come back to my earliest point—to support policy that may or may not be popular. It is imperative that this House and this parliament support this bill. It gives certainty to 1.8 million shareholders. It gives certainty to the telecommunications industry, which, the member for Blaxland said a little earlier, will be the growth industry into the 21st century. Telstra is in the game; Telstra is a player. The government cannot be both the referee and a player in the game. We cannot be both the poacher and the gamekeeper. You cannot be both because, if you are, you are creating an unfair playing field. It is not a level playing field.The regulation of telecommunications is the responsibility of the minister for communications in the Commonwealth government, as prescribed under section 51 of the constitution. It will ever be thus. But you cannot be pulling the levers of share ownership on the one hand and be pulling the levers as a regulator on the other and expect that you can act as both at the one time. That is the single most significant reason why this bill must be passed. You are disenfranchising the competitors of Telstra if you are going to be a shareholder on the one hand and a regulator on the other.How do you know that the decisions made as a regulator are not going to profit you as a shareholder? How do you know that? As a Commonwealth, we must protect, through regulation, the people that need protection. That is the most fundamental reason we are here. But we cannot be a shareholder in the same asset.Franklin Delano Roosevelt said words to the effect that our obligation to create a better world is served not by creating greater wealth for those who are wealthy but by helping those that are poor. That is the role of govern ment. We are here to help those that need a helping hand, to give opportunity to those that want to take opportunity. We are not here to make a profit.Owning Telstra helps us to make a profit at the expense of our nation. It is best that we reallocate our resources to those that are in need and ensure that, with this bill, generations of Australians ahead are given opportunities that generations in the past never had. That will come about through share ownership and through a commitment to a better Australia. (Time expired)21:24:002691Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The telecommunications industry is very much a battle ground. A war is being fought by the telcos of the world for the high ground in the information economy—something which will be enormously to their profit and which has the potential to provide communication services to the citizens of Australia and, indeed, to the citizens of the world on a scale which we have not seen in our lives so far.That is a very dramatic period of change which the telecommunications industry is going through at the moment, and the pace of that change will quicken even more over the next decade. Media conglomerates, information technology companies and telecommunications companies themselves will struggle for the control of the optical fibres, the copper wires, the satellite dishes, the wireless wide area networks and technologies which are still on the drawing boards of the `Baby Bells' in the United States and hopefully on the drawing boards of Telstra in their laboratories in Melbourne—provided they keep them open.But those technologies will only be available through the generosity of the telecommunications companies who will come to dominate those markets. I suspect that the number of those companies will decline significantly in the next 10 to 15 years. We have already seen in the United States, in Britain and in Europe a trend towards the amalgamation of those companies, towards the increasing consolidation of market power in fewer and fewer telecommunications companies throughout the world.Telstra must be one of those companies still left standing when the dust settles in the telecommunications war. Telstra is a vital part of Australia's national interest. It has always been the case that Telstra has been a dominant player in the Australian market. Until recently, until the reforms of my colleague the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the then Minister for Communications, we have seen a substantial change in the competitive arena of telecommunications. We have seen areas opened up to competition which have previously been the sole province of one company.But the reality is that the telecommunications industry in Australia is still very much in a state of flux. Telecommunications companies like Optus and Vodafone, who have sprung up in recent years as a result of those competitive initiatives of the former government, are still consolidating their place in the field. There are new companies arising all the time that are putting their toe in the telecommunications market just to test the temperature of the water. Some of them are finding it a bit too hot at the moment and are even withdrawing some of their services. Others are offering to skim the cream off the top of the inter-capital-city markets and possibly the international markets. But the reality is that the local loop, the last kilometre, is still very much 100 per cent in the hands of Telstra. That one company still owns the last kilometre. In telecommunications the last kilometre is a very vital piece of copper or fibre—as companies like Optus and Vodafone are now discovering. The reality of the market power which that last kilometre gives you is very significant.That is the context in which we have to look at this bill—and the way in which it has been presented to the parliament—and ask ourselves: why was this bill drafted when it was? Why was it presented to the parliament when it was? It certainly was not drafted to advance any matter of high policy. It certainly was not drafted to ensure the better growth of the telecommunications industry in Australia. It was not drafted in the interests of Telstra. And it certainly was not drafted in the interests of the people of my constituency in Bonython in the northern suburbs of Adelaide in South Australia.This bill was drafted and presented to parliament at this time for one very simple reason: one of the ministers of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had been discovered with a very substantial share of the market which he himself was administering and regulating. Senator Parer, the coal minister, was found to own far too much of his own industry. That was a problem which the Prime Minister needed to address during the course of his recent conference in Brisbane. That is why we have this bill before the House at this time. That is why we have this high policy debate put before the House now in a way in which the Prime Minister promised the people of this country would not occur during this parliament.This bill is very much a response to the immediacy of the political environment which surrounds us at the moment. The Prime Minister brought it forward in order to ensure that there would be a substantive distraction from the day-to-day matters of political heat which he was already feeling. So this bill was not brought forward, I would suggest, to advance the telecommunications industry in Australia—quite the reverse.This bill should not have come until after the next election when the matter could have been placed before the people of Australia, as the Prime Minister indicated at the time of the last election it would be in the event that he wanted to sell further tranches of Telstra. Yes, we had the commitment to sell one-third of Telstra, but we then had the equally strong commitment that no further share in Telstra would be sold until the matter had been put before the Australian people and adequately debated in an election context. Then, in the unfortunate event that the coalition were to be re-elected, the Prime Minister would place a bill for the sale of further shares in Telstra before the next parliament.But instead we have seen yet another promise transferred into the non-core pile. This one is perhaps a little technical, which is only suitable, given the nature of the bill. But this is a technical non-core promise because the Prime Minister tells us that, if this bill gets through the House and the Senate, he will not present it to the Governor-General for proclamation until after the election in the event that he is re-elected.But that deflects from the Australian people their proper role in fully debating this issue in an election context. What we will have is a debate now and a debate in the Senate shortly over this bill in the budget sittings, but we will not have the opportunity to present this matter to the Australian people in quite the same way as would have occurred had the Prime Minister kept his promise. So yet another promise goes to the non-core heap, yet another matter of dishonour for this government.I have always seen the issue of telecommunications very much as one of industrial development in this country. Industry policy is very relevant telecommunications policy. If we look back at the history of the development of the telecommunications network in Australia, it has always been founded on the very strong driving force of, in the first instance, the Postmaster General's Department, and then subsequently Telecom and then Telstra. Those wholly government owned instrumentalities—either departments or corporatised instrumentalities—were responsible for driving forward the establishment of the network in Australia, they were responsible for driving forward Australian telecommunications industry policy and they were responsible for ensuring the development of a substantial export oriented telecommunications industry in Australia.What will we have if we move to a fully privatised Telstra? We will have an option for 35 per cent foreign ownership. Some seven telcos around the world—from the United States, for example, and perhaps some from Europe—might end up buying those five per cent lots. They will control 35 per cent of Telstra's shares and, in concert with some Australian institutions who might well pick up some substantial part of the balance, they will be in a position to dominate Telstra's board, to dominate its industry policy and to dominate its purchasing policy.Just how much credence do you think will be given to the needs of the Australian do mestic telecommunications industry, with all its export potential, in the years to come when there are American telecommunications companies who have substantial purchasing contracts and who are able to add Telstra's requirements onto the end of those contracts and, at marginal cost, which will be substantially less to Telstra in the first instance but a substantially greater cost to Australian industry in the long run? They will be able to ensure that Telstra purchases almost all of its requirements from overseas as add-ons to existing international contracts. That is hardly in the interests of Australia's telecommunications industry. It is hardly in the interests of ensuring that the already substantial gap in our trade deficit on telecommunications and information technology products does not widen further in the next century. I very much fear that, if this bill becomes law, it certainly will widen.What will happen to the average consumer of telecommunications services under this scenario put forward by the government? We have already heard the concerns of the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) that this bill simply does not go far enough. I thought at first: how can you sell more than 100 per cent? But no, he wants to extend the requirements for foreign ownership, to remove those restrictions and to allow it to go well beyond 35 per cent. He wants to remove the requirements for the directors to be Australian citizens and he wants to remove the requirement for the chairman to be an Australian citizen. We see in his speech the direction of potential future government policy, and that is to wind back the one or two safeguards which exist in this bill.Much has been made by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) of the $10 million fines which will be imposed on Telstra in the event that they do not meet their community service obligations. What are those community service obligations? They are absolutely minimal. They really are a fall-back to the POT system, the plain old telephone system—a simple copper wire to the average rural or regional property and nothing much more than that. They certainly do not guarantee what the Prime Minister himself and his minister for communications at the last election sought to guarantee to their regional and rural constituents—that is, a high-speed data access network for all of those people. No, they do not deliver anything like that. They guarantee, under this huge threat of fines, the plain old ordinary telephone system which these people already have and which does not deliver the information economy and the information society of the next century and which rural and regional Australia has every right to demand and every right to participate in.When we look at this bill, we must challenge the very basis on which it is presented to this House. It is not here for purposes of high industry policy. It is not here to further Australian national interest. It is here to deflect from the Prime Minister's political failings, it is here to distract attention from ministers who own too much of their own industry and it is here to ensure that those Australians and those foreigners who are able to afford the substantial amount of shares which will come onto the market if this bill becomes law will benefit from this privatisation exercise, not the ordinary citizens of my electorate and not the ordinary citizens of electorates in any part of this country and certainly not in rural and regional Australia. It will profit those foreign telecommunication companies, those Australian domestic institutions, those Australians wealthy enough to own substantial blocks of shares and those who hope to see this price rise in the near future, as it did on the previous occasion.Those who will miss out under this scenario are those Australian citizens who already own a share of Telstra, those Australian citizens—everyone of them—who already own a decent chunk of our national telecommunications company and those citizens who will be deprived because of their lack of finance and their lack of inclination to want to buy back what they already own. They will be deprived of a stake in our national telecommunications company, a stake which we will never be able to buy back, a stake which will be lost to foreign interests forever and a stake which will ensure that our national telecommunications company will only become an outpost of foreign telcos. Our players in the national information economy will simply be bit players following the leads that others will set and not a strong, publicly owned institution of Australia which it would have been had the bill never been brought before this House and had the original decision not been taken.Telstra should now be a strong Australian publicly owned company. Instead it will be one which will be dominated by foreign interests, one which does not have Australian industry development policy at heart and one which those ordinary Australian citizens who now own their fair share of that great Australian company will be denied access to continue to own. They will be denied the profits and the interest in this industry and they will be the ultimate losers of this Prime Minister's wish to take Senator Parer off the political agenda.21:37:002694Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I feel very sorry for the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). I believe that in his heart of hearts he is a Lathamite and would like to see the Labor Party have some policies. I think he would really like the Labor Party to get out there and be the party it once was—to have a policy and not simply to be negative on every single thing. The only thing it does is criticise and carp. Whatever policy the government comes up with it says, `No, no, no; it is bad, bad, bad.' It is utterly incapable of offering anything. This Labor Party does not know where it is, it does not know where it is going and I do not think it wants to know where it has been. Is it the old Labor Party that was against privatisation or is it the recently old Labor Party that was very much for privatisation?The member at the table, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who represents the Labor Party, puts his head down, as well he might. Members of the Labor Party do not know what they stand for. (Quorum formed) How typical of this policyless Labor Party—the party that cannot do anything in this place except criticise. Its members do not have a policy of their own. They are so bad that they are opposing something that was part of their policy in the last parliament.Let me remind you of the policy of this failed Labor government. What exactly did it privatise? What exactly did it sell? In 1987-88 it sold the Tokyo embassy building; the lease on Chifley Square, Sydney; the Williamstown dockyard; the Commonwealth phosphate rock stockpile; the Commonwealth Government Centre; and the Paris head of mission residence. In 1989-90 there was the sale of the Tokyo embassy building; the Commonwealth accommodation and catering services; the Defence service homes scheme; Australia House, Sydney; sale of property to Film Australia; the ACT housing loans assistance scheme; the Australian Industry Development Corporation; Commonwealth equity in the Primary Industries Bank of Australia; and the National Materials Handling Bureau. In 1988-89 there was the sale of the Williamstown dockyard; completion of sale of the Commonwealth phosphate rock stockpile; completion of sale of the Commonwealth Government Centre, Melbourne; the Defence service homes scheme; Commonwealth equity in AMDEL; and Commonwealth accommodation and catering services. In 1991, there was the Avalon airfield—did you manage to sell Avalon or did you just put it up?—Australian Defence Force home loans; and the ACT housing loans assistance scheme. And in 1991-92 the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. Remind me, wasn't that the icon of the Labor Party? Wasn't that so central? Didn't it go back to Labor Party policy in the 1920s—the importance of establishing an Australian national bank? Wasn't the Commonwealth Bank dear to the heart of every member of the Labor Party? And what did the Labor Party do when in government? In 1992-93 it sold it along with Aussat, the Defence service homes scheme and Australian Airlines. Wasn't Australian Airlines another one of the Labor icons? What happened to it? Gone, gone, gone—followed by, let us guess, Qantas. I think there was a proposal to sell ANL and a few other things like the uranium stockpile on the books.What a hypocritical party—a policyless party which is in such a bad state it has to deny its previous policies. How long ago was that—a century ago, a decade ago? Would the member at the table like to remind me? Wasn't it back in 1995 and early 1996 that the Labor Party had all these policies? And where are they how? They have gone. The Labor Party seems to have forgotten about them and, suddenly, it is against selling assets and against privatisation.But let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this piece of legislation before the House today is one of the boldest and farthest reaching pieces of legislation to come into this House. It does provide a concrete economic foundation for this country from which we will be able to weather the vicissitudes of the global economy. It does something else: it reduces the annual interest payments on our debt, funds that can be well used in some other aspects—in health, in education, in the environment and in defence.Thirdly, as referred to by the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey), this legislation looks into the future and decides what sort of country we want to be, a country where the middle class are strong and the middle class own shares—shares not restricted just to a select few but they become the aim of everybody in the community, and this becomes a wealthier country—a country that Sir Robert Menzies did not even dare to envisage; a country where the ordinary working people do not have to rely on their labour for income but can say also that they own shares. This is the vision that this government has for this country. Not only is it a vision which the Labor Party does not share but it cannot even come up with any vision to match it. It has no vision for the next century.Let us look at the three advantages. First of all, there is the reduction of debt. Reducing debt will place Australia in an enormously enviable position, because having a minimum debt is a far greater position to be in than having a large debt. This makes commonsense. It is good economic sense; every mum and dad will tell you that logically it makes sense. It helps us to weather the types of things that have been happening in South-East Asia. If we had had a larger debt, we would have been less able to come through the economic storms that have affected that region.Not only that, a low debt to GDP ratio has an effect on a country's rating, given by Moody's and Standard and Poors. Along with the other good economic fundamentals of this country, good economic ratings will keep down the interest rates, and low interest rates will assist businesses and industry to obtain investment capital for the future. However, not everybody seems to believe in this—although, as I said before, it does make basic commonsense to most people. Of all people, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) does not believe that a low debt to GDP ratio is a good thing. Perhaps the member at the table representing the opposition would like to reflect on that. Why would his leader not be in favour of a low debt to GDP ratio?MG4LEEMr Lee—Do you want to have your second quorum now?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the member at the table would not want to interrupt me when I am about to quote from his leader. In this very debate on Telstra, the Leader of the Opposition said—(Quorum formed) Let me record in the Hansard the fact that the member from the opposition sitting at the table has now called two quorums during my speech—indicating that he cannot handle the truth, that they are afraid of the truth.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What's his name?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member for Dobell.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Eminently forgettable.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The eminently forgettable member for Dobell. I am about to quote from the Leader of the Opposition.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the honourable member for Fisher, who should know better, interjecting out of his place.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—The honourable member for Fisher will return to his seat and stop interjecting.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member for Bobell is trying to stop me reading—MG4LEEMr Lee—Dobell.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Dobell. The member for Dobell is trying to stop me reading into Hansard the comments made by his own leader. These comments were made on debt. What did the Leader of the Opposition say about a 20 per cent debt? He said:But was the 20 a problem? Is the 30 a problem when you add in state debt as well?He said:Of course it is not.Then he went on to make an extraordinary comparison. He said:The US is 48. Belgium has been one of those countries which have been regarded as an economic success. What is its public debt to GDP ratio? It is 124 per cent.This is what the Leader of the Opposition is recommending: a debt to GDP ratio of 124 per cent. He said Belgium is in a good economic state. Let me read something about Belgium's debt in relation to Australia:If our debt were at Belgium levels, there would be an additional $512 billion additional debt. At the present 10-year bond rate of 5.68 per cent, an increase in government debt of that order would mean that the Commonwealth outlays on interest payments would have to increase by $29 billion per annum—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How much?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Twenty-nine billion dollars per annum. He continued:To fund that you would have to increase total tax revenue by 20 per cent.That is what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about—an increase in taxes of 20 per cent. What absolute nonsense. How can the Labor Party hold its head up high when its leader makes such nonsensical statements.Because of the quorums called on me I will be unable to complete my argument today, but I would like to stay on this theme of the Leader of the Opposition and his incredible remarks during his speech. In trying to get away from the huge problem that Telstra has created for the Labor Party, he tried to make the benefit of not having to pay interest on $40 million of debt which will be retired from the sale of Telstra go away. He does not want Australians to have $1.4 billion to spend on other things such as health and education rather than interest. So what did he say? He said: By the year 2000, independent estimates project the government's two-thirds share of Telstra's earnings to reach $2.3 billion per annum.That is a forecast of an 84 per cent increase in dividends over the next 18 months. If this were to be so, I suggest to the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) that, after we get back in and Telstra is being sold, he put on all the brochures for the sale of Telstra `Leader of the Opposition forecasts 84 per cent increase in dividends'. I am sure that we would then be very assured that the oversubscription that occurred for the one-third sale of Telstra would happen again.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And the share price would soar.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—And the share price would soar. But, as we know, this is a lot of nonsense, as the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) later proved. When he got onto his feet, he totally dismissed what his leader had said and he indeed forecast the crossover point for dividends and interest to be in the year 2005 on the basis of a 15 per cent increase. He did it on shoddy figures. If he had included the average interest rates, his figures would have not stacked up because he would have had to forecast a $4 billion saving in payments. (Time expired)21:57:002697Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I at the outset wish to foreshadow that at the consideration in detail stage of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 four amendments, which are now being circulated in the chamber, will be moved. I am a bit astonished at some of the contributions made by members of the government with regard to free enterprise, private enterprise, competition. All that goes out the window when the government refuses to allow real competition to occur. The only way real competition can happen is by introducing another carrier. That is just not going to happen, so what is the point of selling Telstra if you are not going to provide true competition?A couple of statements were made in the chamber in more recent times in regard to overseas debt—statements that this will result in a great reduction in overseas debt. That is all well and good in one respect—that is, we have to justify to the Australian nation how it is that when the coalition government came in the overseas debt was $181 billion but it is now $222 billion. The application of $40 billion from the sale of Telstra will bring this nation back to where we were two years ago roughly.2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Public sector debt, mate.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—I understand that. I appreciate the member said `public sector debt'. I am saying the total overseas debt that has resulted in the Australian nation being faced with an overseas debt of $222 billion, which will come down to $180 billion after the sale of Telstra, which brings us back to where we were two years ago, which is not a very effective way of saying to the nation of Australia that we will be better off because we have sold Telstra. The fact is you cannot sell Telstra again once it is sold.Since its establishment and formation in the early 1900s, Telstra, as it has now come to be known, has played a significant role in Australia's telecommunications industry. Up until last year, Telstra Corporation Ltd was a wholly owned Commonwealth enterprise—that is, we the Australian community were public shareholders. The partial sale of Telstra last year was welcomed and supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian public, and I too supported the sale of one-third of Telstra.Whilst the government is expecting investors to grab this opportunity and take advantage of the biggest float in Australian share market history, many are beginning to voice their concerns. I too have strong reservations why the full sale should not go ahead. Some recent polls would tend to agree with the view that it should not be fully privatised. For example, a recent survey in Western Australia indicated that 60 per cent of the population was against the sale. A survey in Melbourne also recently revealed that 58 per cent were against the sale.The March Bulletin Morgan poll indicated 62 per cent were against this sale and, interestingly, that poll showed that 55 per cent of Telstra's current shareholders were against the full sale. Russell Baker, in an article in the March Bulletin, stated:For those Australians who can't afford shares or who are risk averse, the prospect of full privatisation is worrying. All they may have to look forward to are cuts in services or higher charges when the shackles of social obligation are inevitably loosened after full privatisation.There are real risks and implications associated with the fact that shares are part of the sometimes volatile stock market. This volatility is recognised to be a regular feature to the initiated who monitor, understand and may often pre-empt and deal with market fluctuations, whereas the average so-called—to the annoyance of many—`mums and dads', to whom these shares are directed, may lack an adequate understanding of what it means to be a shareholder and of the risks involved. Future investors should be informed that, although the sale of Telstra is backed by the government, there is no way for the government to guarantee share performance in an open market.A recently released report prepared by the Australian Communications Authority into Telstra services following its partial sale last year has done nothing to boost confidence in a fully privatised Telstra. The report proved that the telecommunications carrier's service dipped following its partial sale. The report found that:Telstra's performance in new connections, service restoration, fault reports and operator assistance calls declined sharply in the three months to 31 December 1997.Even whilst under government ownership, Telstra fails to provide acceptable levels of service. How can the government ensure standards are maintained if it is fully privatised? Whilst under government control, Telstra has a national obligation to maintain its service at acceptable levels. Does no government control equal no national obligation? We need to be persuaded otherwise.We have been told that revenue raised from the sale will be directed to retiring debt, and I have no doubt that the government intends keeping some of it to use for election sweeteners in time to come. I noted while reading the Senate Hansard that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, has recently expressed this concern:After tax and profit flows are taken into account . . . the public sector would be about $1.2 billion a year worse off.Senator Lees and the Democrats are not the only ones who are concerned about the sale of the rest of Telstra.Telstra, as a public company, will be an entirely different corporation from the one in government hands. The bottom line is that it will operate in the interests of shareholders, as required by the Corporations Law. In any privatisation route for public assets, it is imperative, therefore, that the government of the day takes into account the taxpayers' interests. We need only to examine what has happened to other fully privatised entities when it comes to customer service. Few people would argue that service to the consumer has increased. We need only to look at what is occurring in some of our banks since privatisation and deregulation: the queues, the impersonalisation and the dehumanisation of transactions.To whom will the management of Telstra owe that accountability? As a fully publicly owned enterprise, the answer is painfully obvious as far as the public is concerned: to the shareholders, of course. We have been told ad infinitum that there will be guarantees of all sorts to protect rural phone users—untimed local calls, a price cap for regional users, et cetera—but how can we guarantee the guarantees? As I have personally experienced, categorical guarantees by governments at times are not worth the paper they are written on.The initial stages of any sell-off may appear positive and healthy. However, the consequences and repercussions—often not fully thought out or unforeseen—must be fully analysed in the interests of the public as a whole and not simply for some vested interest group. I am of the view that our core utilities must be efficiently run within a government regulatory structure to ensure that services to our people, above all, are maintained and enhanced. What is required is the creation of a privatised culture of management whose focus is enhanced customer service which, in turn, will translate into higher usage and higher profits.Economic analysis would suggest that a company should not be valued in terms of its dividends only and that retained earnings which are reinvested in the growth of the enterprise should also be taken into account. Professor John Quiggin, senior research fellow in economics at James Cook University, notes that:. . . assuming a sale price for Telstra of $4.5 billion, the government could reduce its interest payments by about $2.5 billion per year this year (and every year into the future) by selling Telstra and using the proceeds to repay debt. The Government, however, would lose its claim to two-thirds of Telstra's earnings. This year, the value of this claim would be $2 billion and the Government would be ahead by $500 million. Telstra's profits have been growing rapidly and the market obviously expects that this growth will continue, whether or not it is fully privatised.The assumption is that Telstra's profits will grow in line with nominal GDP—that is, around five per cent a year. On this assumption, the short-term net benefit to the government would disappear within five years, to be replaced by a steadily increasing stream of losses. This would be consistent with past experiences.There has not been one major privatisation in Australia where the government has made a profit relative to the alternative of retaining ownership. In short, the effect of a full sale of Telstra would be negative over a period of time. Many Australians are beginning to fear that, should this occur, it will be followed by an increase in taxes, forcing the average income earning Australians—that is, the majority of Australians—to incur this cost and pay the price for the gains of a minority, those wealthy enough to buy shares in the corporation.In an article in issue 264 of the Australian Public Eye, investment expert Daryl Dixon accuses the government of failing to properly inform investors of the capital gains tax on shares purchased in the first Telstra share offer. Individual investors, he advises, are subject to a 48.5 per cent tax on any gain received. I wonder how many investors have been made aware of that.I noted in the Senate Hansard recently a question without notice asked by Senator Lees in the Senate on 30 March 1998 which is of particular significance in this debate. It would appear that Minister Alston made certain statements claiming that community service obligations, like untimed local calls, as well as foreign ownership restrictions, can and will be retained and strengthened after privatisation. That statement that was made is very important. However, as Senator Lees subsequently asked, while this may be true in theory, isn't it false in practice? The same arguments were trotted out in the case of a fully privatised Qantas and also Optus, both of whom later successfully lobbied government to relax foreign ownership restrictions.What is even more interesting came up following a supplementary question to the minister from Senator Lees, who asked:Is it not true that you signed a declaration in December last year to abandon foreign ownership limits for both Optus and Vodafone?The minister's reply was:I do not think I signed anything in relation to Optus and Vodafone. I may well have been consulted by the Treasurer. You may be right. Maybe I signed it.However, in a later statement, as recorded in the Senate Hansard of 30 March 1998, Senator Lees stated:I have before me here, and seek leave to retable, three documents with the minister's signature on them that sign away all foreign ownership controls—I will repeat that: all foreign ownership controls—on Australia's second and third largest carriers.If the minister cannot even remember doing this, how can we trust this government to look after all consumers once Telstra is sold, if it is sold? How do we get the guarantees from this government that actually mean anything . . . I fully supported the sale of one-third of Telstra, but only one-third. To sell the rest of Telstra and turn it into a fully privatised enterprise would, I believe, be a retrograde step for all Australians except those who want to buy shares in it. It would be a monumental mistake. There is no doubt that, with a fully privatised Telstra, management would come under more and more pressure to deliver strong returns to its shareholders. The long-term interests of consumers, the community service obligations, such as timed calls, and the already depleting services to our regional Australian countrymen and women would come under increased pressure.Let us examine who will be better off if the rest of Telstra is sold. It is true that a number of Australian investors will benefit; there is no question about that. But the largest group will be foreign investors, who will take up some 35 per cent of shares. How does this benefit Australia and Australians? Competition is only a good thing if it gives rise to a better, more efficient and less expensive service to consumers. What this government ought to be concentrating on, rather than selling off the rest of Telstra, is putting in place strong safeguards to ensure that the public's interest is at the forefront of all their policy reforms.We are all aware of examples, under the partially privatised Telstra, of very important services once provided to the rural sector have already been eliminated. Additionally, the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) has not ruled out—and this is extremely important—the emergence of a strategic stakeholder in Telstra in the form of an overseas telephone carrier, although the government's preference is for Telstra to be fully owned by individual Australian investors. How can it be guaranteed that it does not fall into the hands of an overseas investor? I share the concerns of many in our community. This will lead to less accountability and, like the privatised Commonwealth Bank, a fully privatised Telstra will become more ruthless in its practices to ensure higher dividend returns to shareholders by cost-cutting, downsizing and outsourcing. Every Australian in some way or other relies on Telstra. The government should retain control. The government has relinquished control of one-third; it must hold on to the rest.There is an overwhelming weight of international evidence that employment levels have typically fallen sharply when public utilities were privatised. For example, in the case of the Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, almost 50 per cent of the jobs have been abolished since privatisation. Pressures for constant job reduction lead companies not only to cut staff numbers directly but also to remove staff from their books by such mechanisms as outsourcing. This latter strategy may even be pursued, regardless of any significant cost savings to the company, in order to improve employment ratios and satisfy market analysts. The result may be a marked reduction in both consumer service and employee conditions.We are already experiencing these types of situations. A constituent in my electorate, a solicitor by the name of John Fisicaro, phoned my office expressing anger at having been left with a pile of rubble on the footpath outside his home for a long period of time. A member of my staff phoned the local council, who advised that Telstra had been digging for cabling. Council gave my staff a contact phone number. A member of my staff phoned and was told that the cabling dugouts had been undertaken by a contractor who, it would seem, had not bothered to repair the damage to the footpath. The Telstra person said he would chase up the matter. It was eventually fixed. However, it required my constituent phoning me, much time and effort and many phone calls before anything was done. Is this quality service? Is this efficiency?In spite of the guarantees, Telstra has already embarked on encouraging its technical staff to work as contractors, thus moving them from a primary to a secondary labour market which is characterised by irregular hours, lack of job security, poor remuneration and poorer terms and conditions, and in the long run there will be a cost to society. Furthermore, as my example indicates, the company's capacity to meet service orders will be reduced by the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the contractors.If the government continues along the path of full privatisation, what the Australian people need are solid safeguards by way of immutable statements in the memorandum of association and articles of association preventing takeovers from international, foreign owned enterprises. Whether privatised or not, there must be provisions in place that services to all Australians are made available equitably and cheaply. Our rural Australian country men and women must be ensured full services, access to the latest communications technology, an efficient service and repair structure and price caps.We all acknowledge the enormous role of Telstra in the national economy and the community generally. Let us keep it accountable to that community. I do not believe that the guarantees are viable. I do not believe that the cost benefits are there. I do not believe that the financial returns are worth it. I do not believe that thousands of Telstra staff will escape retrenchment. I therefore cannot support the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra.22:15:002701Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation, which is open, which is honest—(Quorum formed) I will start again seeing as I did not get very far. I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation, which is open, which is honest and which will guarantee services for the people in my electorate of Gilmore, a regional area of Australia, while still allowing more residents of the Southern Highlands and the Shoalhaven to benefit from buying shares in this venture.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced, on Sunday, 15 March, one of the most important initiatives of any government. It follows on from our willingness to tackle tax reform—badly needed for businesses and local residents in Gilmore—and adds another chapter to the book on the coalition's first term of office, which has brought the budget from a $10.5 billion deficit to a surplus and has brought the lowest interest rates in decades together with our current low inflation. This was all done in an open, accountable and responsible way to bring Australia back to the reality of spending what it can afford, without using a bankcard that puts all families in debt.The sale of the first third of Telstra was a resounding success. Ninety-two per cent of Telstra employees took up the option of buying shares in the company they worked for—something obviously overlooked by opposition members who themselves own many shares. The share sale was oversubscribed five times—an indication of the demand for more direct personal share owner ship of the company by ordinary Australians. If such figures are not enough to impress upon members of this House the importance of the sale of the first third, then you need only to look at the share prices. Everyone who bought shares—the company, employees, families, single people and mums and dads of the Gilmore electorate—have all made handsome profits in the space of a few months.Now the opposition would like to deny more Australians that opportunity, like they denied 50,000 unemployed Australians an opportunity to work in small business when they rejected the government's unfair dismissal exemption laws in the Senate last week. This sort of action can only give the Australian people one message: that the Labor Party and the Democrats do not want Australians in work and they do not want Australians to have the opportunity of partaking in share ownership—an opportunity to not only take advantage of the benefits of share ownership but also help secure the financial future of this country, for that is what the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra will mean for Australians.This government has already moved the budget into surplus from a $10½ billion deficit. The Australian people understand that you cannot run a business into increasing debt and make it secure for the future, that you cannot continue to borrow just to pay the interest, and they have appreciated the efforts this government has made to make the future more secure for their families. What the Australian people need to be made aware of is that the former government left a national debt of $96 billion for the people of this country to take into their future. That is $96 billion which our children and grandchildren will be paying for the rest of their lives, as will their children and grandchildren in turn. This does not include the $8 billion in interest payments that we pay each and every year and must allocate out of our budget for overseas creditors before we can even look at funding services for our own people. That means that health, education, aged care, roads and all manner of government funded services must take second place to the $96 billion debt left by the previous government.The insecurity this leaves for the people of Gilmore cannot be underestimated and it is why they resoundingly voted the opposition out at the last election. Like every business person in Australia, they realise that we cannot keep living beyond our means. The residents of Gilmore were forced to sit by and watch as the effects of higher interest rates and a huge national debt increased youth unemployment levels for their children, nieces, nephews and friends above 30 per cent—that is, one in every three young people in Gilmore was without a job before we came to government. They watched as businesses were forced to close down as bank interest rates, up at the 17 and 18 per cent mark, became an unbearable burden for small business, and they watched as families lost their homes to the same interest rate hikes. Such debt is not merely a statistic which parties throw around for political purposes; $96 billion has a real impact on the lives of Australians, on my electorate of Gilmore and throughout the rest of the country and it must be addressed.We as a government have proposed a major single initiative which will see this debt reduced by 40 per cent immediately. The amount this will save the government and the people of Australia is in the order of $2,800 million a year, every year, forever. This reduction in debt payments is worth more than the government currently receives in dividends from its current stake in Telstra. Therefore, by saving on these interest rate payments, more money can be spent on services for Australians—services like housing, education and health. By keeping Telstra in the hands of the government, the opposition would have us paying out millions of dollars in debt to overseas interests.Economist Chris Richardson from Access Economics sums it up in a simple statement: `If we pay off government debt, we are saving money forever.' Mr Richardson's sums show that the savings in interest on overseas debt versus the revenue the government lose from the dividends they currently receive by directly owning Telstra is $1.5 billion for this government and for the Australian people every year. This money can then be spent on services for Australia, such as extra health, extra education, extra employment and training services—and that is a major benefit for the residents of Gilmore.Of greatest concern to the residents of Gilmore is that the rural and regional areas will continue to receive telecommunications services at a cost-effective price. It is an important point, for in many of the outlying villages of the Gilmore electorate the nearest neighbour can be several kilometres away and the phone is the only means of access to help in an emergency.The other point on this issue is access—not just to telephones but to Internet services for businesses in regional and remote Australia. These telecommunications services are available, but at a premium which penalises local residents. When the world is at your fingertips, as it is for businesses who use the Internet, you can operate from anywhere in the world at the touch of a button. You no longer have to live in a major capital city to be at the forefront of your industry. I would mention that, in Gilmore, we have some of the most innovative computer software programmers and animators in the world who appreciate the lifestyle of living on the south coast or in the Southern Highlands while conducting their businesses on the other side of the world. Yet Internet access is still cheaper through Sydney than through local providers, and this is not acceptable. This is one of the reasons why the government introduced the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which is funded by the sale of the first one-third of Telstra and which has already provided millions of dollars to assist communities to get equitable access to services.In Gilmore, local councils are working closely with the University of Wollongong to develop a telecommunications pipeline along the coast, linking businesses with other services and the university to ensure that the south coast comes on line with at least the same, if not better, access as metropolitan areas. We have recently received $110,000 from the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund for the councils and the university to conduct a study into the feasi bility of a broadband pipeline for local users. This is the first stage of a multimillion dollar program which will give local residents greater access to the Internet at a more cost-effective price and will encourage investment and jobs in Gilmore.The benefits for regional and rural Australia will continue with the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. Already the government is introducing new legislation to ensure that Telstra and other telecommunications companies comply with appropriate standards of service, with particular reference to the time it takes to install services or repair faults. When a nursing home in Gilmore cannot get a phone line fault repaired for five days and local residents have difficulty getting faults repaired within a week, something must be done; and we are doing it.Under this legislation, the Australian Telecommunications Authority will have the power to enforce compliance by telecommunications companies such as Telstra with high standards of service, including compensation for business and residents should unnecessary delays impact on them unfairly. Regional Australian businesses, such as those in my electorate of Gilmore, fully support this measure, as they previously had no recourse to action if phone lines were cut and not repaired.Let's have the facts, as opposed to Labor's scare campaign—which is all they seem to know, as certainly they have no policies. The law already states that all Australians must have access to the standard telephone service and to pay phones within a legally specified time, regardless of where in Australia they live or work. So, whether you live in Bawley Point or Balmain, you have the same rights of access to Telstra services within the same time frame; and this law will stay, regardless of who owns Telstra. The government has no intention of removing this law and reducing services to rural and regional Australia. Claims by the opposition that services are going to be reduced must mean that they are considering getting rid of this legislative guarantee. I ask them: are you? We certainly will not be voting for it.The next issue which has been raised in this debate is that of untimed local calls. In announcing the decision to offer the remaining two-thirds of Telstra for sale after the next election, the Prime Minister said in March this year that untimed local calls would be guaranteed. Under the Telecommunications Act—which will not be changed at all by this sale—all Australian consumers are already guaranteed untimed local calls. Again, we have no plans to change this legislation and the guarantee it gives to the Australian people. The opposition is simply making up rumours to, once again, scare the Australian people.The government has already introduced a special scheme which offers 17,000 Australians living in remote areas a rebate of $160 per year on their pastoral call spending. This is extra assistance for remote Australians for whom a local call is hundreds of kilometres away—and it was introduced by this government.After the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, Australians in remote and regional areas will continue to receive special assistance with their phone services which recognises the special problems they face, caused by the vast distances between communities in many parts of Australia.Increased competition will result in lower prices, and the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra is a win for all Australians. The benefits of this cannot be underestimated, and it is a vision for the future which the Prime Minister best illustrated during his recent visit to my electorate of Gilmore last weekend when he stated:I am a great believer in private share ownership. It is my goal to make Australia the greatest share owning democracy in the world . . . That is an inspiration that many people in middle Australia share.He also said:We will guarantee in our legislation that Telstra can never fall into foreign hands.The law states that no single foreign interest will be allowed to own more than five per cent of Telstra, and no more than 35 per cent of the company will be allowed to be owned by foreign interests. By law, the chairman and the majority of the Telstra board will have to be Australian, and the Telstra headquarters must remain in Australia.The Prime Minister foreshadowed what he termed a `social bonus' for the people of Australia from the proceeds of the sale, which is a significant amount of money that will be made available for capital expenditure in areas around Australia which need it. My electorate has already felt the enormous benefit of the social bonus of the proceeds from the sale of the first third of Telstra. A quarter of a million dollars has been allocated, under the Natural Heritage Trust, for Gilmore environmental programs. The Natural Heritage Trust is the government's $1.2 billion commitment to the Australian people and the environments in which they live.Debate interrupted.Adjournment270410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.270422:30:002704Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I very briefly say that the advice I have from the Senate is that the Senate believes it will be sitting through until midnight tomorrow night to handle the Native Title Amendment Bill and that they will assess progress at midnight tomorrow night. That is not very good news, but that is the latest news I have. I will inform members as I am further updated.270422:31:002704Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Two great black Americans are commemorated this week. Both men were denounced by the powers-that-be during their time for daring to stand up for their people, just as here today Patrick Dodson, Lois O'Donoghue and Mandawuy Yunupingu are denounced by the powers-that-be for standing up for the rights of their people in the ugly Wik debate. Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King were despised and hated, including by some Australians, for standing up for black rights in the USA, in the West Indies and in Africa itself.On Thursday, the centenary of Paul Robeson's birth will be commemorated. The man who was banned from many nations at the height of the Cold War will be commemorated in more than 150 events in many nations, from the USA to Japan, Spain, France, Britain, New Zealand and Australia. That is not bad for a man who had to perform behind a screen in the south of America.Paul Robeson played a particular part in the struggles of Australia's indigenous population. He used his visit to Australia in 1960 to highlight the poor treatment of Australia's Aboriginal population. He went out of his way to meet with Aboriginal people during his famous concert tour of Australia, and, to the embarrassment of many in Australia, during the trip down under he declared:There's no such thing as a backward human being. There's only a society which says they are backward.At the end of his tour of Australia, he promised to come back and visit Aboriginal people in their own communities outback. Unfortunately, he died in tragic circumstances before he was able to fulfil that promise.Another great black American leader who struggled for the rights of his people was Martin Luther King. Last Friday was the 30th anniversary of his assassination. He was assassinated the night before he was to lead a massive march through the streets of Memphis in support of striking black garbage workers fighting for decent pay, dignity and conditions of employment. The night before the march, Martin Luther King gave a prophetic speech in a local black church where he told his people that, just like Moses, he had climbed the mountain and seen the promised land. He said:I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.Moses did not reach the promised land and Martin Luther King did not reach it either. He was assassinated the next day.Mick Miller, a great Australian leader of the Aboriginal community, also did not live to see the promised land. He died this week. I only wish that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had sufficient dignity to enable Mr Miller to pass away this week in the knowledge that the Prime Minister had given the Australian people an apology for the stolen generation. For Mick and others in Australia, Wik is the promised land. An apology should have been given by the Prime Minister to the Aboriginal people and to the nation at large for the stolen generation. But are we surprised that he had not given that apology?I remind the House this evening of the statements made by the Prime Minister about Asian immigration in 1988 and the fact that it was not until 1995, in the lead-up to the 1996 election—when he thought he could gain votes from an apology—that he actually gave Asians and the Australian nation at large an apology. He failed to apologise to Mick Miller; he failed to apologise to the Australian people for the stolen generation; and it took him quite a few years to apologise to Asian immigrants and the Australian nation at large for his unAustralian remarks of 1988. The Prime Minister stands condemned for his remarks of 1988 on Asian immigration, and he stands condemned for Mick Miller passing away this week in the knowledge that the Prime Minister of Australia had failed to give the Australian people an apology for the stolen generation. He stands condemned. He is a low-life, and the Australian people at large know it.270522:35:002705Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—Over the past 24 hours, we have seen parliamentary privilege abused to an extreme that I have not previously witnessed in my 24 years as a member of the national parliament. I refer, of course, to Senator Ray's allegations made from his much frequented coward's castle in the Senate, in which he claimed:. . . at least one South Australian member's office and . . . a federal member of parliament in Queensland—have been involved in a practice to defraud the Commonwealth's revenue.Senator Ray admitted to the Senate the despicable nature of his allegations when he went on to say:I am going to take the weak option; I am not going to name the two members of parliament concerned . . . all people here . . . will get the backwash of this particular scam.As if that wasn't bad enough, Senator Ray admitted in his speech that he was repeating allegations made to him by an informant who had been told them by someone else; that is, on his own admission, Senator Ray's despicable speech was based on nothing more than hearsay. Nevertheless, they were—and are being—reported uncritically by a section of a compliant, complacent media. On past performance, if a government member had made the same unspecified, scatter-gun, hearsay allegations about, say, an unnamed Labor member of parliament, the Liberal Party and its leadership would have been crucified by the very same media.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand these matters are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order? That is not a point of order.QI4PRICEMr Price—I do not think they should be raised if they are an operational matter of the Australian Federal Police.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Chifley will resume his seat. There is a sub judice rule but the member for Moncrieff is speaking entirely within her rights as a member of this parliament.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take the opportunity of the adjournment debate to confront Labor's latest exercise in gutter politics. Senator Ray did not name, and has not since named, the South Australian Liberal and Queensland Liberal he referred to in the Senate yesterday. As a consequence, all federal Liberal members of parliament in these two states—where Labor has a miserable total of four seats in the House of Representatives—today have worn his muck.We have been told that Labor's Senate leader made some information available to appropriate authorities today—not yesterday, when the allegations were made, much less before they were made; as an afterthought, to cover their own muddy, smelly tracks.This afternoon I was contacted by a number of press gallery journalists on this further allegation that more Queensland Liberals are included. One of those journalists was Jeff Breusch from Channel 7, apparently chasing the story that was carried on this evening's television news, namely, that there were three other Queensland Liberals who are involved in the same scam. Another journalist informed me that I was alleged to be one of the three, and that the source of the allegation was `Labor Party members'—note the plural.So it is not only Senator Ray who wears the stench of this disgusting exercise, but also his colleagues—all of them, including their gutless leader, who would not come in this evening and answer the charges. I am confronting the issue, firstly, to utterly reject these allegations in my case and, secondly, to challenge those Labor Party members who have so assiduously peddled their grubby story around the press today to produce the evidence on their allegations about me.In my experience, the only way to deal with people of this sort is to come out in the open. I am coming out in the open. I am saying that I am one of the three who have been subject to these allegations, and that there is no substance to them. Because they have got away with their allegations so far, they are expanding on them. There is no evidence.The television news I have mentioned referred to Robert Ray as `Labor's chief bucket tipper'. We all know that this Australian colloquialism does not refer to a bucket of water. Until such time as Labor does what I have done—come into the open on the subject—and produce its evidence in the parliament to substantiate its muckraking tactics, it is those opposite and their leader—their gutless leader—Kim Beazley who wear the contents of Senator Ray's bucket and the stench associated with it.270622:40:002706O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The most pressing social and economic problem facing rural and regional communi ties today is, of course, unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that many regional communities have great difficulty in generating the full-time jobs necessary to employ their people, especially their youth.Cities and towns in regional Australia have undergone critical contractions over the past two years, especially since the Howard government came to power. Massive budget cuts at both the state and federal level by Liberal and National party coalition governments have contracted public sector employment, with consequent spillovers to the private sector.The justification given for the savaging of rural and regional Australia by the Howard government is that it was absolutely necessary to rescue the nation from a parlous budget deficit left to the government by Labor. Of course, we hear little comment from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) about the $25 billion Liberal deficit he left Labor in 1993, coupled with double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation.The Prime Minister and his arrogant Treasurer (Mr Costello), who happens to be in the chamber tonight, continually tell us that their actions on the budgetary front now save us from the Asian economic meltdown. The one economic factor that would have insulated Australia from the effects of that meltdown would have been the four to 4½ per cent growth rate that the Keating government left John Howard when he came to office.But, of course, regrettably, this weak Prime Minister and his hopeless Treasurer could not even match the growth rate Labor left it with in 1993. They deflated the growth rate in their two budgets of 1996 and 1997 and, in engineering a lower growth rate, exposed Australia unnecessarily to the fallout from the Asian economic meltdown. If they had gone for growth, the same growth as Labor, then the automatic stabilisers in the budget would have largely resolved this deficit, without the enormous damage and pain to Australians living in rural and regional Australia.And what did we get from the government? We got a $500 million cut to nursing homes, a $400 million cut to dental health, an $800 million cut to public hospital funding, an $87 million cut to the home and community care program and, of course, massive public sector job losses that have devastated local communities and fuelled the deep sense of despair at the outright betrayal of their futures by this ramshackle government.It is a ramshackle government. We on this side of the House are losing count of the scalps, the resignations, the rorters from the frontbench. Over here, we have all chipped in 10 bucks; 19 of us have chucked in 10 bucks each, and we are waiting to see who is going to win on which Liberal-National Party frontbencher will have to resign next. There have been seven resignations, multiple backbench defections, a Speaker who was pushed out of his position in this chamber, and we now have a government—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member needs to be very careful in the remarks that he is making.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I am not reflecting on you, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, but you are reflecting on my predecessor who was also a Speaker. I suggest that you withdraw that remark.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I most certainly will withdraw it. It is not my intention to reflect on probably one of the better Speakers that this parliament has seen in the postwar era.But there is one thing that all Australians know about this government; it is in an advanced state of decay. There has never been any other government in our postwar history that has seen so many resignations, so many sackings, so many backbench defections as we have seen in this government today.The Australian people will not forget this government's incompetence. They will not forget that it is a ramshackle government that could not even emulate Labor's four to 4½ per cent growth that we left you with over four years. It is a real tragedy for Australia that you could not even emulate what Labor gave you over the previous four years. (Time expired)270722:45:002707Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I challenge Senator Ray. I am here. I can see me but I cannot see him. Where is he? Where is the evidence against me and other fellow Queensland women in this place? How dare he cast slurs and aspersions against my good name and that of my fellow women colleagues. I totally reject these allegations. They are untrue. They are as untrue as any claim by Beazley that he did not have anything to do with it or did not know anything about it. Where is your evidence, Senator? Where is your proof? As one of the Queensland women who have to bear your vicious implications, I am hostile and take extreme umbrage at your loose tongue and your moral paucity. This is a smear campaign at its utter worst. How dare you try to tip your own particular putrid bucket of Robert Ray rubbish over me and my fellow Queenslanders! Where is the evidence, Senator Ray, or is the only weapon you have—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member just accused you of tipping a bucket of putrid—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—She did not.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—She did.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. I heard what she said.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—It is outrageous that your arrogance can resort to the attack on honourable decent members of this House. Where is the evidence against us, Senator Ray? I hereby challenge you to bring it into the light of day. If you have anything against my women colleagues or me, bring it out for the rest of the world to see and to judge.HK6LINDSAYMr Lindsay—He's only got fake receipts.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—That is right, fake receipts. Otherwise, you stand exposed as the offensive, gutless wonder we have always known you to be. Where is your leader? Where is Mr Beazley? Have you embarrassed him too, like the rest of your Labor cronies on the other side of the House? They have not said one word—not one word—in support of Senator Ray. Indeed, there has not been anything any honourable decent member could say. Mr Beazley's absence and his silence in support of the defence speaks volumes for the dishonourable position you have taken, Senator Ray. Where is the Leader of the Opposition? He seems to be engaging in a new method of damage control—mute absence. Is this really the best the Labor Party can do?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Didn't you hear what your Justice Minister said? She said it had been referred to the Federal Police.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Banks will remain silent. It is customary for members to defend themselves. The honourable member is doing so.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—How many more false documents? How many more fabricated letters will they have to resort to to cover up their inept and ineffectual performance in opposition? How desperate they have become, falsifying documents and laying trails of deceit.Well, Senator Ray, you have really hit the lowest in any of the dirt slinging I have experienced since I have come to this place. You are absolutely outrageous. That a senator should stoop so low to present a fabricated document and then present it as so-called evidence against honourable members of this House is outrageous. It is outrageous that you should send your little apparatchiks around the press gallery to whisper up a sleazy campaign of innuendo and suspicion.HK6LINDSAYMr Lindsay—Against Queensland women.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Deja vu, Bolkus!LL6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—Yes. I do not want to shoot the messenger, but I cannot help wondering why the members of the parliamentary press gallery who have the important duty to record and to report parliamentary events could be so easily fooled. How could they be so willing to accept the whispers without so much as an investigative phone call or perhaps even asking Senator Ray to put up or shut up before taking this so-called story to the public? This whole episode shows Beazley for what he really is: a weak and ineffectual leader of a wimpy party who has lost any sense of direction and who is wallowing in the control of the party factional thuggery. We had both the member for Banks and the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) making racist comments in this place. And has Mr Beazley done anything at all about that?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will not reflect on other members. The remarks were not made in this House.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And, Mr Speaker, I ask that those remarks by the member be withdrawn. I take offence at them. They are not accurate. There are no racist remarks on the record.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member will withdraw those remarks because they were not made in this place.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—I withdraw those remarks. I would comment that the member for Holt and the member for Banks have both been asked to apologise for comments they have made in this place. Has Mr Beazley done anything about that at all? No. The factions pick his team of party henchmen. He is supposed to be the leader, but he is not leading. He is not even controlling his people. The shadow Attorney-General, Nick Bolkus, in October 1996 apologised to the Aboriginal affairs minister, Senator John Herron, for accusing him in the Senate of hating blackfellas. Why is it all right to apologise in 1996? Why don't the member for Holt and the member for Banks follow the same example set in 1996 and apologise in 1998? (Time expired)270822:50:002708Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—Let me say to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Elizabeth Grace) and to the rabble opposite—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will address his remarks to the adjournment debate.HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—I address my remarks to you, sir. If ever there was a weak and wimpy leader in this House on either side, it is the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard). EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 75, I object to the government being described as a rabble. I believe that should be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unfortunately, you cannot describe that as being against our standing orders because it is a collective noun, not an individual noun.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, he described me as well as others in this House as a rabble. I find that offensive under standing order 75, and I require that it be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Warringah should know that those collectives nouns have been accepted in this place for a long while. The honourable member for Shortland, however, needs to be careful in the remarks that he makes about individuals, for they are quite different from collective remarks.HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—Mr Speaker, I am a most keen student of the models that you have set in the past, and I will strictly adhere to the standing orders and the practices that you have so faithfully taught me.I have referred to the behaviour and to the cacophony that come from those opposite, and you heard it the same as I heard it. Let me move on to two things that I really want to discuss. I want to bring to the attention of the parliament the concerns of one of my 90-year-old pensioners and the way he is being treated by Telstra and the practice of Telstra in changing the rating times and days without any advice to subscribers.In this case, this man has to be in constant contact with his family. He is fit and able and gets around, but his family needs to know that he is okay. He rings his family frequently in the adjoining area of Cessnock. What happened was that on 9 February Telstra changed their day calling rate away from the economy rate to the day calling rate. The hours were changed from nine to five back to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. So this gentleman was making his calls at a much higher rate than he had been aware of. There had been no advice given to him. I think in the current debate about Telstra this needs to be brought to attention.The other matter I want to refer to in the couple of minutes that are left to me, after my time was taken up by the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott), is the black day in my electorate on 27 March when this government closed down the Medicare office in my electorate. Almost 14,000 signatures were brought to this parliament. They were all ignored by this government and this Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who proclaim support for Medicare whilst they are busily closing down 43 Medicare offices and 200 Medibank offices across Australia. Do not think the people of Australia do not know what you are doing. They do not trust this government. They do not believe the weasel words that come from this government.I appreciate the support given by the small business people of Belmont who needed that service, who saw a benefit to the region from that service. But they recognise that the government we have opposite has an incredible record. Mr Speaker, you and I know this. We have seen many governments together. But neither you nor I have seen a government that in two short years can have five ministers go down by resignations or sackings, two parliamentary secretaries go down with more to go, one speaker gone, two backbenchers gone and one minister's carcass swinging in the breeze pleading for somebody to cut him down.No government in history has ever seen that incredible performance. You are a ramshackled government—a government that is not believed. The member for Casey (Mr Halverson) believed the Prime Minister. Look what happened to him. Mothers believed the Prime Minister. Look what happened to child care. The unemployed believed the Prime Minister. Look what happened to the CES and social security. The sick believed the Prime Minister. Look what happened to health care. Families believed the Prime Minister. Look what is happening to Medicare. Retirees believed the Prime Minister. Look what happened to nursing home entry fees and aged care.The elderly believed the Prime Minister and they all know that this is a government that, each one of you—even the Prime Minister— no matter how you plead and clamour, cannot be believed. You can rant and rave and clamour. But, to a number of you, farewell because you will not be here very much longer. (Time expired)271022:55:002710West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—Kim Beazley failed to demonstrate leadership yet again tonight—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest you call the Leader of the Opposition by his title.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—by failing to come in to the parliament to explain the conduct of Senator Ray. He was nowhere to be seen, conspicuous—HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Reluctant as I am to take a rapid point of order on this matter, the standing orders provide—Government members interjecting—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—You wouldn't know.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Look you, through you, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will either address his point of order or sit down.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Them, Mr Speaker, not you. You missed out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will resume his seat!XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—He was nowhere to be seen, conspicuous by his absence.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Mr Speaker, the point I was trying to make—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You were told to sit down because you did not make your point of order.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—The failed defence minister, the head kicker of the Victorian Right, has cast a smear over the integrity of me and all of my Queensland—HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Under your instruction, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will either raise his point of order or resume his seat.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Mr Speaker, standing orders provide that the casting of aspersions upon members of this House must be accompanied by a substantive motion. The comments being made about the Leader of the Opposition deserve to be the subject of a substantive motion if they wish to be made.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. There have been successive occasions on both sides of the House of that character. Indeed, if the honourable gentleman cares to refer to remarks made yesterday in the grievance debate by the honourable member for Grayndler he will see that they went way beyond anything that is currently being said.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. For some time, including just a moment ago, the member for McMillan was interjecting out of his seat which is outside standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will only intervene from their seats. The honourable member for McMillan will resume his seat if he wishes to intervene.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—They have cast a smear over the integrity of me and all of my Queensland parliamentary colleagues. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof? The truth is that all we have is smear, innuendo and gutter politics. The owners of the motel refuted the only claims presented outright and comprehensively. Senator Ray should have checked his sources. He has been sold a pup. Only a devious mind could fabricate such an elaborate scam. What fertile minds can create such nonsense?I am reminded of an incident prior to 1996 when an obviously fabricated document was foisted upon an unsuspecting electorate by the then Treasurer, the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). This Willis document lives as an indictment to Labor's guilt. I stand here to defend the good name of all good Queensland members. They have been besmirched and accused not with an open and public accusation but by stealth in the late hours of the night and under the privilege of parliament—only with smear, allegation and innuendo. This is the stuff of sheer political opportunism.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—Political thuggery.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—How convenient. How timely. How obviously transparent. This is the classic coward's castle. Political smear is the province of devious minds for devious purposes. This political smear requires an outright walloping to rout bullies in their gutless and cowardly attack. The meter is running. The flag is down. The disreputable driver—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Moreton interjected across the chamber accusing members on this side of being engaged in thuggery. I ask that he withdraw the remark.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the remark.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—I did not.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—It wasn't him, it was me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Moreton will rise and withdraw the remark.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, I did not say it, but if the member for Grayndler thinks I did I will withdraw.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—I completely refute the allegations. They are untrue. They are a scurrilous attack on the integrity of me and my colleagues. They are a lie. What we have here is a clear example of tomcattery, the behaviour of political alley cats. Remember, whatever it takes!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.8V5WORTHMs Worth—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m.271123:00:002711Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—Senator Ray, looking like a thug, sounding like a thug and, without doubt, being a thug in the Senate last night—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw those remarks.Mr Bob Baldwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Paterson will remain silent. The honour able member for Adelaide will withdraw those allegations.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—If it helps getting on with my comments—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, are you going to listen to my point of order as well?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Wait a minute. We have two points of order we have to overcome first. The honourable member for Adelaide will withdraw those remarks.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Mr Speaker, if it helps providing me with some time tonight—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, it does not. You will withdraw those remarks.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I withdraw those remarks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before you proceed, I want the honourable member for Paterson to rise and to also withdraw his remarks.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—I withdraw.K26LATHAMMr Latham—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Adelaide has the call. You cannot take a point of order on something when the honourable member has not spoken.K26LATHAMMr Latham—I am on a point of order as to the extension. A parliamentary secretary can only seek an extension for matters for which they have executive responsibility. She has no responsibility for this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member is entirely within the concept of the standing orders.K26LATHAMMr Latham—It is an abuse of the parliament, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not. The honourable member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The honourable member is entirely within the concept of the standing orders.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I am absolutely fascinated that the member for Werriwa would actually think that rising in this place to defend oneself and one's colleagues was an abuse of the parliament, given what Senator Ray said in the Senate last night. What were Senator Ray's responsibilities in the Senate? Senator Ray was a former Keating minister who is now chief head-kicker.Mr Latham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa!Mr Latham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Under standing order 304A, I ask the honourable member for Werriwa to leave the House.The honourable member for Werriwa thereupon withdrew from the chamber.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The member for Werriwa says that this is an abuse of parliament—an abuse of parliament to stand and defend one's own reputation and the reputation of one's colleagues.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will put his coat on if he wishes to be in this House, or he can leave the House.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Senator Ray, having made the accusations he did about the scanning of false material in electorate offices, went on to say that apparently this has occurred—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Fraser will leave the House until he puts his coat on. This is not a division. We are in the normal process of the House, and members should have their coats on like everybody else.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Senator Ray, in commenting last night in the Senate about irregularities in electorate offices, went on to say that apparently this has occurred in at least one South Australian member's office.Mr Tuckey interjecting—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the member for O'Connor made comments clearly audible across the chamber which he should withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not believe anybody in this place heard them. We were flat out hearing anything.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Well, I heard them. Mr Speaker, with due respect, if you are going to rule that it is acceptable for the member for O'Connor—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I will ask the honourable member for Grayndler to leave the House under standing order 304A if he is going to continue like that. You do not dispute.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Out! Out!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, I said I will if he keeps on the way he is.10000Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I will have one more go at saying what Senator Ray said last night.Mr Tuckey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for O'Connor will remain silent.Mr Tuckey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw that threat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What threat?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw those remarks.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What remarks?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You know what you said. I heard them, and so did everybody else.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—That we should go outside and talk about it? I withdraw it. He wouldn't have the guts to go anywhere.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You're a liar.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will withdraw that remark.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw it. You know his explanation is misleading the House.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is an eminently reasonable request, which is that the member for O'Connor withdraw the threat unconditionally.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor withdrew his remarks. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired. No other parliamentary secretary or minister having risen, the parliamentary secretary may continue.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: standing order 48A(f)—I seek your guidance—states that a minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m. on a Tuesday evening to `speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland would know, having been here, that matters have been raised during the adjournment debate. It does not specify from which side. The member for Adelaide is entirely within the standing orders. It is equally available to a member of the executive, and that has been a custom since the Hawke government days.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I have been attempting to say, despite being shouted down by those opposite, to remind those here, that Senator Ray said last night that apparently this occurred in at least one South Australian member's office and that the technique has been transferred to the offices of Queensland federal members of parliament. I strenuously deny any allegations made against myself, and I am sure that that quite appropriately applies to my colleagues as well.Why would these matters be raised now? One could only suggest that it is because an election will be held some time in the next 12 months. There are only two Labor members in South Australia and two Labor members in Queensland. If you cannot beat people fairly, you will try to get them down in any other way. It is absolutely disgraceful behaviour. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has lacked leadership. The Leader of the Opposition will not require his members or senators to make an apology when they are unjust. It is a grubby tactic. We have had racist slurs against members of the frontbench; we have had racist slurs made against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). The frontbench has been attacked and the backbench has been attacked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Adelaide will resume her seat. The members of the House will remain silent while I call the member for Perth on a point of order.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on three occasions, the member for Adelaide referred to members on our side making racist slurs. This evening, you have already required the withdrawal of the phrase `racist slurs'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat. If the member for Adelaide alleged individually that members made racist slurs, she should withdraw that remark.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—It is on the record, I would have thought, Mr Speaker, that racist slurs have been made against the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Did you make the allegation against individual members opposite?8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I said `against the Prime Minister', and I am sure the Hansard record will show that—that those opposite have at times made racist remarks and slurs against the Prime Minister and have not been pulled up by the Leader of the Opposition.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. It is still collective. The member for Adelaide is within the standing orders.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's not on the Hansard , Mr Speaker.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can I have some silence from members of the government. The member for Adelaide has just used a collective phrase which is entirely within the habits of this House.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Adelaide said that racist slurs were made and it is a matter that is on the record of the House. That is not so, Mr Speaker. She is implying that racist slurs are being made; that is not the case at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has no point of order; it is a collective phrase. The member for Adelaide has the call, but should not make allegations against individual members of the opposition.10000Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The point that I have been attempting to make is that the Prime Minister has been attacked, our frontbench has been attacked and now our backbench is being attacked. It is the lowest form of politics. The Leader of the Opposition should be showing leadership and demanding some standards from those members and senators he leads instead of allowing the attacks that have made on my colleagues.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned.23:10:002714House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.Notices2714The following notices were given:Mr Downer to present a bill for an act to give effect to certain of Australia's obligations as a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the National Measurement Act 1960, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to amend the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to amend the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Reith to move:(1) That, if the House is not sitting when the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has completed the report of its inquiry into the funding of Australia's defence, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or, in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker:(a) the publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; and(b) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report.(2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders.(3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.Mr Fahey to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 Development, Pinjarra Hills, Qld. Mr Fahey to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: HMAS Albatross Stage 1 Redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to rename the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, create the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, amend the law relating to human rights, and for related purposes.Mr Warwick Smith to present a bill for an act relating to digital television broadcasting, and for other purposes.Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to amend the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991, and for other purposes.Ms Worth to present a bill for an act to regulate activities involving radiation, and for related purposes.Ms Worth to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, and for other purposes.Mr Andrew to move:That standing order 48A (adjournment and next meeting) and standing order 103 (new business) be suspended for this sitting.Mr McClelland to move:That this House:(1) notes that the 1996-97 federal Budget cut $1.8 billion from labour market programs;(2) notes that the cut in funding could mean a loss of $400 million to the NSW Technical and Further Education sector by the year 2000 and lead to a cut of 100,000 enrolments in TAFE;(3) further notes that the federal Budget also abolished 5 per cent of TAFE's growth funding representing a cut of $91.5 million over four years to the sector; and(4) calls upon this Government to seriously address the issues of youth unemployment and in particular to properly resource vocational education and training of young persons.Mr McClelland to move:That this House: (1) notes that the current federal Government has diverted funding into private education at the direct expense of public education;(2) acknowledges that a properly resourced public education system is vitally important to equity of access to quality education; and(3) calls upon the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to properly resource public education.Mr McClelland to move:That this House:(1) notes the increasing gap between costs for medical services and the insurance coverage provided by both Medicare and private insurers;(2) acknowledges that the extent of that gap is a significant disincentive to persons undertaking private health insurance;(3) further notes that many private health insurers have lost creditability as a result of unilaterally varying the terms and conditions of their policies without obtaining the informed consent of their policyholders; and(4) therefore establish a committee to investigate all aspects of the private health industry including a requirement that medical practitioners and providers fully disclose to patients the likely cost of treatment and the extent to which that cost will exceed their health cover.Documents2715The following papers were deemed to be presented on 7 April 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 20—Amendment 1998 31 March.Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.Answers to Questions in Writing2716The following answers to questions were circulated:2716(Question No. 2628)26282716Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:What sums have been allocated for English to Work programs in 1998 (a) in total and (b) to persons (i) under 24 years of age and (ii) 24 years of age and older.2716Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) My Department provides English language training for unemployed people under the Job Seeker Preparation and Support (JPS) program and the Advanced English for Migrants Program (AEMP).Current data indicate expenditure in the order of $35m can be expected for English language training under the JPS program in 1997-98 for ten months operation prior to the commencement of Job Network on 1 May 1998. A total of $5.26m has been made available for the AEMP in 1998.(b) (i) & (ii) Funds are not allocated under the JPS program or the AEMP by age of participant. However, people under 24 years of age constituted 7.3% (848 people) of commencements under the JPS program in the financial year to mid March 1998 and 9.2% (214 people) of commencements under the AMEP.2716(Question No. 2654)26542716Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, on notice, upon 2 March 1998:(1) What are the salary and terms and conditions of employment of each office bearer and member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).(2) Who was appointed to the AIRC during 1997.(3) Following changes to superannuation legislation, are office bearers and members of the AIRC required to contribute to a superannuation scheme. (4) Was the requirement for employee contributions to superannuation discussed during the appointment of the President of the AIRC.(5) Who left the AIRC during 1997.(6) What was the reason for each departure referred to in part (5).(7) What was the basis of severance payments for each person who left the AIRC in 1997 on grounds other than retirement and what sum did the person receive.(8) How was the basis for severance payments determined and who was consulted in preparing the severance package.(9) Was the fact that superannuation had been of a non-contributory nature for some members considered when severance packages were determined.(10) Are there vacancies in the AIRC.(11) What is the gross weekly wage of each classification covered by the hospitality industry award which was the subject of the recent AIRC decision in the Award Simplification Case.(12) What total income would a person employed in each classification receive if that person was the sole income earner in a family with two children and Family Payment and Additional Family Payment were included.2716Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under section 8 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the WR Act), the AIRC consists of a President, two Vice Presidents and a number of other Presidential members (ie. Senior Deputy Presidents and Deputy Presidents) and Commissioners. All are appointed by the Governor-General.Remuneration of AIRC members is prescribed by sections 21 and 23 of the WR Act. These are linked to the salaries payable to Judges of the Federal Court of Australia. Effective from 19 August 1997, the following annual salary rates apply: President—$202,526; Vice President—$191,114; Senior Deputy President—$185,548; Deputy President—$176,271; Commissioner—$123,390.AIRC members are entitled to travelling allowance as prescribed by the Industrial Relations (Allowances) Regulations. Presidential members are entitled to benefits under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 and the Judges' (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979.Commissioners are eligible for superannuation scheme membership under the Superannuation Act 1976 (if appointed prior to 1 July 1990) or the Superannuation Act 1990 (if appointed after that date). Under a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal (Det 33/94), Commissioners accrue four weeks annual leave on the same basis as Senior Executive Service officers of the Australian Public Service and are covered by the Commonwealth Employees (Long Service Leave) Act 1976.A member of the Commission holds office until the member resigns, is removed from office or attains the age of 65 years (section 16 of the WR Act).(2) The Hon Mr Justice Geoffrey Giudice was appointed as President effective from 17 September 1997.The Hon Mr Justice William Fisher, President of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, was concurrently appointed as a Deputy President of the AIRC on 8 December 1997.(3) The Judges' Pensions Act 1968 is a non-contributory superannuation scheme. Members covered by either the Superannuation Act 1976 or the Superannuation Act 1990 are required to pay an employee contribution towards their superannuation.(4) As with any statutory appointment within the Commonwealth, the terms and conditions of appointment were explained to the President.(5) The following ceased to be members of the AIRC during the 1997 calendar year:. the Hon Justice D F O'Connor. Senior Deputy President Hancock. Commissioner Dight. Commissioner Nolan. Commissioner Oldmeadow(6) Each member referred to above, with the exception of Commissioner Dight, who passed away, resigned under section 29 of the WR Act.Justice O'Connor resigned and returned to her duties as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Senior Deputy President Hancock, Commissioner Oldmeadow and Commissioner Nolan took early voluntary retirement as part of the restructuring of the Commission by the former President. This occurred in the context of changes to the level and geographic distribution of the Commission's work following the commencement of the WR Act.To achieve the restructuring, the President offered members the opportunity to perform their duties on a part-time basis, or to change their place of residence from a relatively lower workload area to a higher workload area, or to retire early (Commission members normally have tenure to the age of 65 years).(7) There were no severance payments other than for retirement. Members who wished to retire early on the basis referred to above were entitled to a payment up to a maximum of 18 months salary, in addition to any other accrued entitlements. This was arrived at by reference to a base amount and an additional amount calculated with regard to the member's length of service and years of service foregone by early retirement. Members with less than one year of service before retirement were excluded.Senior Deputy President Hancock, Commissioner Oldmeadow and Commissioner Nolan were each paid 18 months salary on this basis.(8) The basis of the payments for early retirement was developed by my department, having regard to the tenure arrangements for Commission members. The department sought informal advice from the President of the Remuneration Tribunal who indicated that the Tribunal considered the proposed scheme was appropriate in the circumstances. The department also consulted the Industrial Registrar, the Attorney General's Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, the Australian Taxation Office and the Commissioner for Superannuation. I informed the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance of the then President's restructuring of the AIRC and the proposed early retirement arrangements.(9) No.(10) The positions of President and the Vice Presidents are currently occupied. The Governor-General appoints such number of other Presidential members and Commissioners as are required from time to time.(11) The gross weekly wage (award rate per week) for each classification of hospitality industry worker (full-time employees) is:General employeesIntroductory Level$359.40Level 1$376.10Level 2$401.20 Level 3$419.50Level 4$451.20Level 5$492.90Level 6$513.80Casino/Gaming TasmaniaKeno OperatorsFirst 3 months service$376.90On completion of 3 months service$415.70On completion of 12 months service$432.40On completion of 24 months service and thereafter$448.70Croupier and/or DealerFirst 3 months service$376.90On completion of 3 months service$481.50On completion of 12 months service$491.00On completion of 18 months service$500.60On completion of 24 months service and thereafter$519.90Inspector and/or CashierFirst 12 months service$503.60On completion of 12 months service$512.90On completion of 18 months service$522.20On completion of 24 months service$541.70Camera Surveillance OperatorFirst 12 months service$503.60On completion of 12 months service$512.90On completion of 18 months service$522.20On completion of 24 months service$541.70(12) This is a matter for the Minister for Social Security.2718(Question No. 2656)26562718Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What was the rate of growth in traineeships in percentage terms in 1996-97 compared with 1995-96.(2) Do successive Budget papers show that the Government has reduced expenditure on vocational and industry training and vocational education and training outlays and grants by approximately $270 million.(3) Is it a fact that within 20 months of March 1996 the number of 15 to 24 year-olds in full-time employment had dropped by approximately 73 000 and that 300 000 persons in the age group were seeking employment. 2718Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) While the total number of traineeship commencements continues to increase, the growth rate in traineeships has declined from around 115 percent in 1995-96 to around 47 percent in 1996-97. The decline in growth rate, however, should not be overstated as the starting point in these comparisons is the relative low figure of around 17 000 traineeship commencements in 1994-95.(2) No. Over the past three years outlays on vocational education and training have increased by 11.9 percent or $144 million. Budgeted outlays for vocational education and training total $1,354,846,000 in 1997-98 compared with outcomes in 1995-96 of $1,210,602,000.(3) No. As data on full-time employment for persons aged 15 to 24 years are available only in original terms it is important to examine changes over a time period which is not affected by seasonal factors. A comparison of data for January 1996 and January 1998 (the most recent data available) which eliminates seasonal distortions shows that over this two year period the number of full-time employed persons in this age group declined by 73 000. Total employment for this age group declined by 41 300 over the same time period. In November 1997 (20 months after March 1996) there were 276 800 unemployed persons aged 15 to 24 years. The level of full-time unemployment was considerably lower than total unemployment, at 188 500 in the same month.2719(Question No. 2660)26602719Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will he provide full details of the data on which he based his statement on 29 December 1997 concerning positive forecasts of employment growth for 1998.(2) Had his attention been drawn to contrary indications from other data before he made the statement; if so, was his Department consulted about the overall interpretations he placed on the sets of data.(3) What is his Department's advice on forecasts of employment growth for 1998 and what is the basis of the advice.2719Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 29 December 1997, I held a press conference commenting on employment growth. The only reference to forecasts was the Budget and Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecasts which are provided by Treasury. The optimism which I expressed about meeting those forecasts was supported by the strong growth that had been reported in the ABS Labour Force estimates for November 1997, the continuing rise in the DEETYA leading indicator, trend increases in the ANZ vacancy series and DEETYA Skilled Vacancy Survey and improvements in hiring intentions surveys such as Morgan and Banks and Drake International.I also pointed out that statements made by employers in their interviews with the press provided another positive sign for employment growth. A summary of the ABS Labour Force Statistics and the various indicators and vacancy series for the period preceding the press conference is provided in Attachment A.(2) My Department had briefed me on an easing in some indicators in the ACCI-Westpac Survey of Industrial Trends and on developments in Asia. These indications did not alter the overall impression for a positive outlook for employment. The Department advised me that the Budget forecasts for through-the-year employment growth in 1997-98 and the unemployment rate in the June Quarter of 1998 should be achievable.(3) The Department advised me that the Budget employment growth target of 2.25 per cent between June Quarter 1997 and the June Quarter 1998 should be achievable. This advice was provided on the strength of data, indicators and vacancies. For example:- economic activity was clearly strengthening, with real GDP(A) estimated late last year to have been growing at an annualised rate of around 6 per cent in the half year to the September Quarter 1997, compared to 3.6 per cent over the year to the September quarter 1997;- in the year to October 1997, retail trade grew by 5.4 per cent (trend) and dwelling approvals rose by 11.3 per cent (trend); and- the ANZ job advertisements series increased by 17.8 per cent (in trend terms) over the twelve months to November 1997—this was the largest annual increase since March 1995.Similarly, the Department has advised that the Budget forecast of an unemployment rate of 8 per cent in the June Quarter of 1998 should be achievable, given the good employment outlook and assuming no major rebound in the labour force participation rate.With regard to employment growth prospects (as opposed to forecasts) by industry, the Department has stated in DEETYA Job Futures 6: Information for Careers Advisers, June 1997, that there are better-than-average job prospects in retail trade and in accommodation, cafes and restaurants (which is closely linked with the tourism industry) and average job prospects in construction.ATTACHMENT ASUMMARY OF SURVEY AND INDICATORS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO 29 DECEMBER 1997. The ABS Labour Force Survey indicates that (seasonally adjusted) a total of 70,900 new jobs were created in the month of November 1997, bringing the total to 145,300 new jobs for the three months to November 1997. Of the 145,300 new jobs, around 80,000 have been full-time. The unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) was stable at 8.4%.. The ANZ Job Vacancies series and the DEETYA Skilled Vacancy Survey index continued to rise in November 1997. The ABS job vacancy series also increased in August 1997 (quarterly release). The ABS and ANZ series were at historically high levels in trend terms.- The ANZ noted that the level of job advertisements for November 1997 was consistent with net new job creation of 16,000 per month over the next three months and if sustained, the Government would meet the Budget forecast of 2.25 per cent employment growth between the June Quarter 1997 and the June Quarter 1998.. The Drake International Hiring Intentions Survey indicated that hirings were expected to increase by 1.3 per cent in the October—December Quarter 1997, considerably higher than for the same period last year. Retail, hospitality and business services sectors anticipated the strongest growth.. The Morgan and Banks Job Index for November 1997-January 1998 recorded the highest level of job optimism since July-September 1995. The most optimistic industries for the quarter were information technology, advertising and construction/property.. The DEETYA Leading Indicator of Employment leads turning points in cyclical employment by an average of around 10 months. It turned up in November 1996 and continued to rise in October 1997.. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute Leading Index of Economic Activity rose marginally in September 1997. Except for a small fall in August 1997 the index has been rising since September 1996.. The ACCI National Survey of Business Expectations and the Yellow Pages—Small Business Index provided a positive outlook for business conditions and employment expectations. The National Australia Bank's Monthly Business Survey claimed that confidence and prospects lowered from the October 1997 high due to the impact of the Asian crises, although labour market conditions strengthened in November 1997. However, ACCI-Westpac Survey of Industrial Trends indicated that business confidence in the manufacturing sector declined during the December Quarter 1997, including an expectation of further labour shedding.. In the DEETYA Job Futures 6: Information for Careers Advisers, June 1997, better-than-average job prospects were recorded in retail trade and in accommodation, cafes and restaurants (which is closely linked with the tourism industry) and average job prospects in construction.2720(Question No. 2666)26662720Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) How many persons undergoing deportation from Australia were being held in detention centres at 25 December 1997.(2) What is the average duration of detention in a detention centre before deportation.(3) What is the longest period a person has been held in a detention centre before deportation.(4) Which countries have refused to accept deportees from Australia.(5) How many persons from each country referred to in part (4) are being held in detention centres pending deportation.(6) What is the average duration in a detention centre of persons from (a) the People's Republic of China (PRC), (b) Sri Lanka, (c) Egypt and (d) other countries who are undergoing deportation.(7) How many persons from each country referred to in part (6) are being held in detention centres pending deportation.2720Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) At 25 December 1997 there were 9 people detained under section 253 of the Migration Act 1958. Four (4) were detained in Immigration Detention Centres (IDC) and five (5) in state correctional facilities.(2) In 1997, the average number of days that a person was detained under the section 253 provisions of the Act (in either an IDC or a state correctional facility), prior to deportation was 20 days.(3) The longest period a person was held in detention in 1997, in either an IDC or a prison, was 238 days. During this period of detention there were 4 days in which the case was not subject to AAT review or an injunction from the Federal Court.(4) Currently, no country is refusing outright to accept deportees from Australia. Difficulties may arise, however, when the receiving country requires confirmation of continued nationality from the deportee. Depending on a number of variables, including the cooperation of the deportee, this creates delays in executing the deportation order. My Department constantly negotiates with destination countries to ensure that deportations occur as quickly as practicable.Countries where delays have occurred include India, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Romania and Iraq.(5) At 10 March 1998, there were two (2) Vietnamese nationals and one (1) Romanian detained in state correctional facilities and one (1) Vietnamese detained at an IDC. (6) During 1997, the Department did not detain, for the purposes of deportation, persons from (a) the People's Republic of China (PRC), (b) Sri Lanka or (c) Egypt. During 1997 the average period of detention for nationals who were deported to (d) other countries was 20 days.(7) The latest available information (as at 10 March 1998) is that there are no deportees from (a) PRC, (b) Sri Lanka, or (c) Egypt currently in detention. There were 11 deportees from other countries in detention.2721(Question No. 2689)26892721Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Will he provide a list of each contract for cartage or transport between private contractors and the Commonwealth, other than the Department of Defence and other organisations within the Defence portfolio, (a) in place at 30 June 1997 and (b) entered into after 30 June 1997 showing (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) the date the contract was entered into, (iii) the expiry date of the contract, (iv) the date of tender and if no tender was called why, (v) the total payments expected under the contract and (vi) the nature of the cartage or transport including a description of the cargo.2721Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The honourable Member's question seeks highly detailed information which is not readily available in a consolidated form and would involve my department in wide ranging consultations with other agencies. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the honourable Member's question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved.2721(Question No. 2715)27152721Smith, Tony, MPMr Tony SmithSK6DicksonLP10 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:How many (a) divorced and (b) separated but not divorced (i) men and (ii) women were recorded in the 1996 Census (A) in total and (B) as living in rented accommodation.2721Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (i) (A) 395,336 divorced men were recorded.(a) (ii) (A) 503,498 divorced women were recorded.(b) (i) (A) 216,099 separated but not divorced men were recorded.(b) (ii) (A) 254,975 separated but not divorced women were recorded.(a) (i) (B) 137,232 divorced men were recorded as living in rented accommodation.(a) (ii) (B) 185,449 divorced women were recorded as living in rented accommodation.(b) (i) (B) 87,313 separated but not divorced men were recorded as living in rented accommodation.(b) (ii) (B) 120,094 separated but not divorced women were recorded as living in rented accommodation.2721(Question No. 2716)27162721Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:(1) How many properties has the Indigenous Land Council (ILC) acquired in Western Australia since the ILC's inception.(2) Will the Minister identify the properties referred to in part (1) showing in each case the (a) beneficiaries and (b) sum spent on acquiring the property.(3) Does the ILC provide funds for the purchase of vehicles and machines; if so, what funds have been provided to whom for what purchases.(4) Did the ILC purchase land described as the Old Swan Valley School; if so, (a) from whom was it purchased for the Manguri association, (b) what sum was paid, (c) was it purchased for the Manguri association, (d) was the property the former Sister Kate's Hostel and (e) who will be the beneficial owner of the property if the Manguri association fails.2721Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:(1) Five.(2)PropertyBeneficiary CorporationCostFormer West Swan Primary SchoolManguri Land Enterprises Inc$0.318 MCardabia StationTalanji and Baiyungu Aboriginal Corporations$1.63 MDenham Industrial SiteYamatji Wirriya Aboriginal Corporation$0.052 MGwambygine EstateSacred Heart Aboriginal Corporation$0.920 MJullallanWalitj Land Aboriginal Corporation$1.47 M(3) The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) may provide funds for a range of land acquisition and land management purposes. These purposes include the purchase of plant and equipment, including motor vehicles and other machinery. Such items have been purchased by the ILC in the performance of its land acquisition functions, for example, when a particular land purchase has been unable to be effected without also acquiring a business operating on the land in question. With regard to the performance of its land management responsibilities, the ILC has funded and will continue to fund, in appropriate cases, the acquisition of vehicles and machines when this is considered necessary or desirable for the effective management, on a commercial basis or otherwise, of a particular indigenous-owned property.The ILC would be unable to provide a detailed answer to this part of the question without undertaking research of a large volume or records. Should the honourable member require information relating to capital equipment on specific properties, the ILC would be glad to provide that information direct to him where the information is readily accessible.(4) (a)—(e) The ILC purchased a property on the site of the former West Swan Primary School at Henley Brook for $318 000. The property is not the site of the former Sister Kate's Hostel.The property was formally acquired by the ILC on 1 November 1996 from the Manguri Association which had acquired the property through a loan from the Uniting Church. The ILC, in effect, paid to discharge the mortgage on the property and, in turn, divested the property to Manguri Land Enterprises Inc. The legal and beneficial owner of the property is therefore Manguri Land Enterprises Inc, not the Manguri Association, and the failure of the latter would have no effect on the identity of the beneficial owner of the property.