1998-04-083816REPS272301998-04-08Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills2723r5182723Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.272309:31:002723Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Our government promised it would fix up the waterfront—its rorts, its inefficiencies, and its archaic work practices. And we meant it. We are absolutely determined to do all in our power to promote greater competition in the stevedoring industry. We will fully support employers who share our reform objective to greatly improve productivity and reliability. Our international competitiveness as a nation depends on achievement of this goal.This bill, together with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, delivers a key element of our commitments. They underpin the Commonwealth government's administrative arrangements designed to facilitate urgently needed restructuring. The bills raise a levy on stevedoring operations to fund these administrative arrangements and ensure that the industry is responsible for such funding and not the taxpayer.These bills, and other administrative measures that I will announce today, are important elements in the government's shipping and stevedoring reform agenda. Improving the performance of these critical links in our transport and trading system is vital to Australia's economic well-being.The potential benefits of waterfront reform are of vital significance to our national interest. The present arrangements, based on union monopoly, are costing Australia dearly. Our waterfront is inefficient, unproductive and unreliable by world standards. It prevents Australia achieving not only the immediate economic benefits flowing from maximising our international competitiveness but also, more importantly, the long-term improvement in the perception of our overseas trading partners of Australia as a reliable supplier.This situation has gone on for far too long. When the government came into office in 1996, it inherited a stevedoring sector where productivity and reliability were in decline, despite a decade of direct government involvement in waterfront reform and commitment of some $430 million to the reform process.Successive independent reports to the government on the progress of micro-economic reform, including the Productivity Commission and Industry Commission, have concluded that the stevedoring sector remains an impediment to the competitiveness of our manufacturing and primary production sectors. Business consistently expresses concern about the high charges, low productivity and unreliability of the waterfront.That this situation prevails is not a consequence of government inaction. Since World War II, the Commonwealth government has played a direct role in specifically regulating both the stevedoring and shipping sectors, including administration of labour arrangements. The current industry structures can be traced back to this high level of government involvement.On the waterfront, the most recent intervention was the Labor government's three-year program of reform from 1989 to 1992 whereby the government appointed Waterfront Industry Reform Authority (WIRA) oversaw the introduction of enterprise based employment to the stevedoring sector. Unfortunately, this expensive program failed to tackle the fundamental problem of the lack of competition in the stevedoring labour market.By the end of the WIRA process, the control over the supply of operational labour had been concentrated in the hands of a single union, the Maritime Union of Australia. This has meant that the union has had the power to virtually tell stevedores how they should manage their business and it has largely dictated the terms and conditions under which any new entrant stevedore could operate.Poor waterfront performance largely reflects the appalling state of industrial relations in the industry. There have been too many cosy deals, funded by the Australian taxpayer, that have failed to deliver the goods. Union recalcitrance, epitomised by the monopoly power wielded by the MUA, has consistently prevented or undermined changes to outdated work practices. As a result productivity and reliability remain low. Relative to our international competitors, our performance is getting worse and not better.Enough is enough. Today the government is encouraging employers in both shipping and stevedoring to take immediate steps to normalise their employment practices in line with community standards. Australia can no longer afford to have monopoly labour arrangements in strategic economic sectors, like stevedoring and shipping, which adversely impact on their efficiency and reliability and thereby reduce our nation's international competitiveness.In line with its election mandate and public commitments, the government has today taken decisive action to address this parlous situation. The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has provided the foundation for these measures by restoring the balance in the relationship between employers and employees, promoting freedom of association, and encouraging greater flexibility in the labour market. Industry participants, including new entrants, now have greater scope to pursue new working arrangements to bring performance of their businesses to internationally competitive standards by improving work force productivity and reducing labour costs.Prospective employees, whether they choose to belong to a union or not, and irrespective of which union they might choose to join, will now have an opportunity to secure jobs in an industry that has been for far too long an MUA closed shop.Awards are being simplified to ensure they form a genuine safety net. Matters of detail that are best dealt with at enterprise level are being removed. This is particularly beneficial to the waterfront sector where improved performance is reliant on increasing workplace flexibility and restoring management discretion and responsibility. Australian workplace agreements have been introduced as an avenue for direct negotiation and consultation between employers and employees.For the first time there are now effective remedies against unlawful industrial action. The reinstatement of the primary and secondary boycott provisions to the Trade Practices Act 1974 provide affected parties with redress in the event of illegitimate industrial campaigns. These remedies ensure the necessary tools for participants in the maritime industries, as well as those businesses which import or export goods, to take effective action against commercially destructive industrial action. As an aside, the Labor Party have a public policy to repeal those provisions if ever they are to be re-elected, which is concrete testimony to the way in which the Labor Party are bound to the trade union movement and bound to the MUA on this issue.On the waterfront, the government has reached an agreement with our two major stevedoring employers, Patrick and P&O Ports, to adopt seven key performance benchmarks as the basis for continuing improvement. These include an end to overmanning and restrictive work practices; higher productivity: we have commitments from the major stevedores to achieve a benchmark for container terminal cranes of 25 containers being moved per hour as a national average across the five major container ports; greater reliability through less industrial disruption and the elimination of outdated work practices: the level of industrial action on the waterfront should be no worse and preferably much better than the national average; improved safety: injury and fatality levels must come back to the all industries average or better; lower costs throughout the logistics chain to the waterfront gateway; more effective use of the technology available to increase productivity and ship turnaround times; and improved training.The achievement of these reforms requires stevedores to implement significant structural changes in their operations and to manage the resultant rationalisation of their labour force. While the means of achieving these reforms is a matter for the industry participants to determine, the government has a vital part to play in ensuring the legal framework supports any lawful initiatives to implement more productive labour arrangements, including those adopted by new entrants to the industry.The government also wants to assist restructuring by facilitating access to redundancy funding required to reduce excess labour arising from industry restructuring. The promotion of this restructuring is crucial if Australia is to have an efficient and reliable waterfront. The memorandum and articles of association will be provided shortly to the Australian Securities Commission to establish a wholly owned Commonwealth company to be called the Maritime Industry Finance Company. MIFCo will be a company limited by guarantee and headed by an independent chairman, Mr Anthony Clark, a managing partner in the respected firm KPMG. MIFCo will establish, under Commonwealth guarantee, a loan facility of up to $250 million from financial institutions which MIFCo may use to pay stevedoring employees a sum equal to their entitlements upon redundancy.The intention is that MIFCo's operation should be administratively simple, while protecting the Commonwealth's interests, so as to ensure payments are made to redundant employees speedily, providing a deed of release is signed. In other words, those stevedoring employees who are made redundant will have made available to them arrangements to ensure payment of their full and very generous benefits accruing on redundancy. However, unlike the previous failed schemes, it is not intended that taxpayers will have to foot any part of the bill for reforms that are in the national interest. Those costs will be met and absorbed by the industry.I now turn to the specific provisions of the bill to explain how this will be achieved. The levy arrangements proposed by this bill, in conjunction with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, are modelled on the existing stevedoring levy legislation, the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act 1977 and the Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Act 1977. However, the new arrangements are considerably simpli fied and, unlike the 1977 arrangements, they will not apply to bulk cargo. The performance of seaboard bulk cargo terminals is generally accepted as already being internationally competitive.This bill provides the mechanism for collection of the levy imposed by the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia. The flat rates of levy that will apply upon the commencement of this legislation are considerably simpler than the administratively complex scheme applying under the 1977 legislation. Under section 7 of the bill, the levy is to be paid by the person who is responsible for the loading or unloading by way of contract, arrangement or understanding with the owner-charterer of the ship, which generally means the stevedoring company. The maximum rate of levy is set by section 5 of the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 at $10 per vehicle and $20 per container. However, the bill provides for a lower rate of levy to be prescribed by regulations. I intend to set the actual rate at $6 per vehicle and $12 per container.Both the major stevedores have agreed that the levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing structure of charges so that there is no overall increase in costs to shippers. The cost of these arrangements will be borne by the stevedoring industry itself. It is anticipated that not only will our importers and exporters not have to pay more but also, as workplace reforms are implemented, stevedoring costs will progressively diminish. Importantly, unlike the arrangements under the 1977 acts, the proposed levy arrangements will not impose any obligations on shipping lines or shipping agents.The method of collection also is simplified under this bill. As provided by section 9, this will be by way of returns to my department at regular intervals on which payment of the levy is to be based. The secretary to the department can appoint inspectors, who are to be employees of the Commonwealth, or a state or a territory. They will have various powers to access premises and search for documents, as outlined in section 13 of the bill. I have already indicated that the Commonwealth, through MIFCo, will require access to funding to support the removal of surplus labour through industry restructuring in advance of the receipt of levy payments. Consequently, the bill includes in section 17 the provision of a special appropriation allowing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business to authorise payments that are directly or indirectly in connection with the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry, including meeting the cost of associated financing and administration costs.The bill makes no provision for a `sunset' date by which time the levy must be terminated. It includes a mechanism in section 8 for the determination of the final levy month after which liability to pay the levy will cease. It is not the government's intention that the redundancy funding arrangements will be available indefinitely. It is anticipated that it will take six or seven years for the levy payments to meet the full cost of the redundancy benefits. I intend to conduct a review of the levy legislation and rate of levy within three years after its commencement.Let me now turn briefly to that other area of the maritime industry in which the MUA continues to exercise monopoly labour control, the Australian shipping fleet. As a result of industry based pooled labour arrangements, extravagant crewing costs and outdated work practices, the Australian shipping sector continues to have the highest vessel operating costs in the world. Since the withdrawal of government administrative support for the seamen's engagement system, in February 1998, shipping companies have begun the move to establish company employment and significantly improve the crew to berth ratio.I announce today that in order to expedite that process the government stands ready to provide a Commonwealth guarantee to any Australian shipping company which needs to borrow money in order to meet the cost of these redundancies in the Australian flag fleet. If in the future that guarantee is called upon, the government will amend the levy legislation to include shipping. The government's in-principle decision on this matter was advised to the union in December when the union advised the government of their expectations of redundancy and their acceptance of those redundancies as part of the reform process.ConclusionThe Australian stevedoring industry is on the threshold of a new era when, for the first time, employers and employees will have the motivation and mutual confidence in their future prospects to strive to achieve world best practice standards in productivity, reliability and international competitiveness. The government has identified the reforms that must be addressed by the industry to reach this goal and has provided the necessary legal framework to facilitate their implementation. They have been accepted by Patrick's and P&O Ports, the major stevedoring companies. This legislation underpins the administrative arrangements necessary to actively encourage the stevedoring industry to tackle the fundamental restructuring required to achieve the government's reform agenda.A strong foundation has been established on which to build a revitalised stevedoring sector. The measures being implemented today are vital in raising Australian living standards, creating more jobs, promoting a stronger export culture, reducing our foreign debt and expanding the opportunities for small business. They are measures which will allow considerable productivity improvement, ensure redundant employees receive the value of their full entitlements, involve no cost to our export and import industries and, subject to the passage of this legislation, will not impose any cost on taxpayers.I conclude with my opening words: we said we would fix the waterfront and we meant it. I commend this bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.Bills2726r5162726Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time. 272709:49:002727Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It's like an aphrodisiac.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Hunter, the member for Prospect and the member for Lyons.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This bill outlines levy on the loading and unloading in Australia of containers and vehicles from ships. This bill operates in conjunction with the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998, the collection bill. In addition to making provision for the collection of the levy, the collection bill allows the minister to authorise payments in connection with restructuring or reform of the stevedoring industry. The purpose of the levy is to enable the Commonwealth to recover such expenditure.The bill imposes levies which are intended to recover the cost of moneys expended by the Commonwealth. The amount of levy collected annually will depend on the rate of levy. The rates set in the legislation may be reduced by regulation. It is anticipated that between $20 million and $40 million would be collected annually. Over its life the legislation will be cost neutral.I refer members to the regulation impact statement, which is set out in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. The maximum rate of levy is as set but, as I indicated for the previous bill, a lower rate of levy will be prescribed by the regulations. I intend to set the actual rate at $6 per vehicle and $12 per container.As I have already said in the accompanying second reading speech, both the major stevedores have indicated that the levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing structure of charges so that there is no overall increase in costs to shippers. I have also referred to the government's intention to conduct a review of the levy legislation and the rate of the levy within three years after its commencement.The levy mechanism is well understood in the stevedoring industry for raising funds for industry purposes with a statutory levy dating back to 1947. By contrast, the levy arrangements under the current bills are much simpler and are directed at supporting crucial restructuring of the stevedoring sector.That completes the package of measures presented today to the parliament by the government as part of its approach to reform of this vital industry. I commend this bill to the House as well.Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will remain silent.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Hindmarsh Island all over again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect, the member for Hunter and the member for Lyons, I have already warned you. If you wish to stay to hear the—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Scurry out. Go on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Jagajaga.09:51:002727Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—These stevedoring bills have nothing whatsoever to do with waterfront reform. The actions of this government have nothing whatsoever to do with waterfront reform. The actions of this government are to target a particular union and seek to destroy the lawful rights of the workers to organise, the lawful rights of all Australians to be represented by people whom they choose, the lawful rights of Australians to work once they have made a choice as to how they should be represented. This is an unlawful act within the framework of the government's own legislation.Let me go through the government's own legislation in this regard. Reflect on this: these workers have been sacked, not made redundant under the normal provisions of redundancies. Redundancies occur when a worker is surplus to requirements. There are no workers here who are surplus to requirements. Their sacking has not been based on any information provided to them that they are surplus to requirements. They have been sacked in order to be replaced by another work force. It has nothing to do with competition on the waterfront.This government declared its attitude towards competition on the waterfront when it endorsed the actions of the Western Australian government in the port of Dampier. Just reflect on this: not many people in the eastern states understand the role and function of the port of Dampier. I, as a Western Australian, do. The port of Dampier is one of our great export ports, probably greater than most of the eastern states' capital city ports. So we are not here talking about a mere bagatelle as far as the Australian stevedoring industry is concerned. What this government has done is to endorse a monopoly—not competition. When P&O sought to be part of the arrangements at the port of Dampier, the Western Australian state government, with the complicity of this government, opposed it, and they awarded a monopoly to a man who is a substantial contributor to Liberal Party funds in Western Australia.We know the legislation is not about competition. The legislation is endorsing a process of unlawfully sacking Australian workers for one reason and one reason only, and that is that they happen to be members of a union. If the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) does not believe that, within the framework of his own Workplace Relations Act, his act is unlawful, let me quote from subdivision C of his act, `Unlawful termination of employment by employer'. Subsection 170CK(2), states:. . . an employer must not terminate an employee's employment for any one or more of the following reasons—and it goes through the reasons. The second reason states:(b) trade union membership or participation in trade union activities outside working hours or, with the employer's consent, during working hours.You may not be sacked if your interest in life is going to be advanced by being a member of a trade union—not redundant workers but unionists sacked in order to destroy a union for the political benefit of the Liberal Party, not for productivity on the waterfront. Furthermore, there are more unlawful elements of this particular action. I cite the employer's duty in relation to the award under which those sacked workers are now employed. I go through the employer's duty to notify under the award. It states:Where an employer has made a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the employer shall notify the employees who may be affected by the proposed changes and the union or unions.The second part of it, defining that first clause, states:Significant effects include termination of employment.So they have breached the award. Because there are a very large number of members of our work force who work under awards, all Australians know that awards give them protection. The processes in those awards are the processes that guarantee their security. The government will seek a double dissolution later this year on unfair dismissal, but they will not seek to alter that particular proposition in their unfair dismissal laws. So, even if they were to succeed on that, this is an unlawful act within the framework of this industrial legislation, whatever government emerges—ours or yours.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said the other day in this parliament that he would support all actions which were lawful in regard to his exercises on the waterfront—yet another non-core promise, broken within one week of that promise being delivered. I will cite just one more example of the unlawful nature of this act. Subsection 170CL, `Employer to notify CES of proposed terminations in certain cases', states:(1) This section applies if an employer decides to terminate the employment of 15 or more employees for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, or for reasons including such reasons.(2) As soon as practicable after so deciding and before terminating an employee's employment because of the decision, the employer must give to the Commonwealth Employment Service a written notice of the intended terminations . . . So the government have breached the act in relation to unfair dismissals, they have breached the act in relation to the requirement to notify the CES of the fact there are 1,400 Australian workers who were in work but are no longer and they have breached the requirements of the award—the same award system which still protects very large numbers of Australians in the workplace.It does not matter whether or not you feel any particular sympathy for members of the Maritime Union—this government has worked very hard at demonising the reputation of those who work on our waterfront—but all Australians will feel sympathy this Easter for the 1,400 families who do not know what will happen to their breadwinner as a result of the actions which are undertaken here. But these 1,400 families, the rest of the Australian work force and the Australian people know that, whatever difficulties Patrick's may have been experiencing when they went down the confrontational road, the workers always acted lawfully. In order to justify therefore a set of unlawful acts on the part of those employees, this government has entered into a conspiracy with them to seek a confrontational solution and has now entered into a conspiracy to attempt to establish an ex post facto justification for this particular unlawful act as far as Patrick's is concerned.These sackings have never been about waterfront reform; the activities of Patrick's have never been about waterfront reform. The management of Patrick's have displayed a mendaciousness; they have displayed a conspiratorial bent. They have not dealt honestly and straightforwardly with their work force, and they have been aided and abetted in that regard by this government for months and months now.There is a funny little telltale paragraph in the second reading speech of the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill, and I would draw members' attention to it. The minister said:However, the new arrangements are considerably simplified and, unlike the 1977 arrangements, they will not apply to bulk cargo. The performance of seaboard bulk cargo terminals is generally accepted as already being internationally competitive. Why is that so and what is the significance of that? They are internationally competitive because a government that believed not in confrontation with the Australian people but in working with the Australian people put in place a process of waterfront reform. If you cast your minds back to the days before the previous Labor government took office you will recollect that the principal complaints of our exporters and our farmers were all directed towards the movement of bulk cargo across Australian ports, as well they might have been because the substantial proportion of Australian exports went in bulk. The substantial proportion of activity across the Australian waterfront involves the export of bulk cargo; in fact, it is something like 65 per cent of what passes across the Australian waterfront.What happened when we confronted this situation when we got into office? We had an overmanned waterfront—10,000 stevedores—left in place by the Fraser-Howard government of the late 1970s and early 1980s. We had a wretched practice as far as movement of two-thirds of our exports was concerned. The Labor government put in place reforms and the number working on the waterfront came down from 10,000 to just over 3,000. These were redundancies, not sackings. Furthermore, they were voluntary redundancies. They were workers surplus to requirements. They were not a work force that needed to be replaced by others, having been sacked; they were genuinely redundant workers. In that process agreements were entered into between the parties on the waterfront, which have produced, by the minister's own admission, world's best practice outcomes—all achieved through a process of negotiation. There is world's best practice on two-thirds of Australian exports. The previous government had then put in place a process, through enterprise bargaining, whereby efficiencies might be obtained.Recollect this too: there are other parties to agreements now and to arguments with the waterfront employees. They happen to include P&O and they happen to include Sealanes, and there would be others as well. As far as they are concerned they are working within the ambit of enterprise agreements and they are achieving the efficiencies. Already, P&O is up to 24 container movements an hour and rising. What was the government's target? It was 25. That was the target set by the government in relation to these arrangements. Are these being achieved by sacking workers merely because they happen to be members of a union? No, they are not. They are being achieved by a sensible enterprise negotiation, the first round of which produced a 40 per cent improvement in efficiencies across the board on the Australia waterfront and the second round of which was to produce even greater efficiencies in an environment in which there was no confrontation.But this is a government which relishes confrontation. This is a government which desires confrontation for various purposes. Firstly, they have a visceral hatred of organised labour. It is a centuries old hatred of organised labour. In many ways, the debate that we are having here is a debate that has been around for a hundred years as far as Australian history is concerned. There has always been a complete unwillingness by our political opponents to accept the fact that if as an individual you approach an employer and expect to bargain on an equal basis you cannot. You cannot get a requirement that gives you a sense of confidence that you have an income that can support your family. There is no equality in the bargaining process between an employer and an employee. For the last century there has been a determination amongst ordinary Australians in this country that they should not be left like a shag on a rock when it comes to industrial negotiations. There has been a knowledge among them that, if they are left like a shag on a rock in those industrial negotiations, they will be massively disadvantaged. This government has gone too far in undermining the capacity of ordinary Australian workers to organise. But the interesting thing about this is that, having gone too far with their industrial act and having threatened the sense of security that there is in the Australian work force, they are now trying to take it a bridge further by coming in here today and endorsing an unlawful act under the frame work of their own legislation—not our legislation, their legislation.Every Australian worker today now knows that when Howard and Reith went forth to the Australian people and said, `You have a right to choose,' they did not tell the truth. They did not mean it. They were insincere when they said that. The product of that is that, no matter what you happen to think of members of the MUA and no matter how unlovely you happen to think members of the MUA are, every Australian worker now knows that every Australian worker can be arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood.In recent days we have had a mantram from our political opponents, which has gone like this: we have formed the greatest reforming government since World War II; we are the strongman of Asia. Talk about a small man's complex in relation to how you go out and preach your wares! I guess if you do not blow your own trumpet nobody else will blow it for you.We know this and the Australian people know this. The actions of this government have repeatedly undermined the confidence and sense of security of the ordinary Australian. They have comatosed the Australian economy and sent us into a situation in which we confront a potential crisis in our economic relations with the region around us that will have an impact on our own economy—a potential crisis with growth rates way below what could have been achieved. That process of creating that sense of insecurity has caused Australians to pause for thought as to whether or not they will acquire houses; caused Australians to pause for thought on a range of activities; and caused Australians to no longer have confidence in their right and capacity to work and, therefore, caused them to not consume in a way that advances this economy and produces growth. They will today, from this particular act and from the actions of the government, have more cause to feel that insecurity. With growth rates half to two-thirds of what we had when the Labor Party was in office and with a GST, the privatisation of Telstra and unlawful acts in the industrial relations system dumped on top of them, Australians will experience a comatosed economy for a great deal longer than might otherwise have been the case.We have put this legislation in its setting; let us get back to the main point of it. What we see here is a government energised to unfairness, a government energised to produce an outcome to deprive Australians of jobs. They get out there and organise this levy under government tutelage to get Australian workers off the waterfront, to get companies, or in particular Patrick's, which say they cannot operate at a profit, to assume a huge additional burden in order to pay for this levy to take workers off the waterfront and replace them by other workers—not to take workers off the waterfront and replace them by nobody because they are redundant to necessity but to take workers off the waterfront and replace them with other workers. That is a situation very different from that which applied under us.Compare and contrast this energised activity with the quiet sloping towards Jerusalem related to the fate of the people in the Cobar mines, at Woodlawn or in the meatworks that have shut down in recent times as company law has been manipulated to deprive workers of their just claims on redundancies. Can we get an inch of movement out of the government on any of this? We cannot get one inch of movement out of this government on any of this. We get from this government a set of promises: `Well, maybe we'll come to think about it next year, next month'—sometime out there in the future. The government does not care about those workers.But get this government to viscerally get after those whom they truly hate in the Australian political system and the energy is unbelievable. The focus may be a bit of a problem but the energy is unbelievable. You saw that failed effort of theirs to sack people up in Cairns. That belled the cat. Then you saw the untruths told in this House by the government over the state of their knowledge of that absurd Keystone Kops Dubai effort. Then we have seen the total denial by this government of any involvement in any tick-tacking in relation to unlawful acts and Patrick's—denial given the lie today. This has been a consistent pattern of conspiracy to do down ordinary Australians—a persistent pattern of misleading and duplicity by this government. This government now invites the parliament to put some sort of stamp on what they are doing with this particular act.Let me make another point about this. From time to time this government seeks to draw a comparison between the actions of the previous government in relation to airline pilots and what they are doing here on the waterfront. The waterside workers were not acting like the pilots in the airline dispute: they did not resign; they were willing to work. You have to comprehend this: no pilots were sacked during the airline dispute—none. Not a single pilot was sacked during the airline dispute. The pilots chose to desert their employer. They chose to walk out of the airlines and leave the airlines without a work force as far as pilots were concerned. The airlines then proceeded from that point in time to recruit a new work force. There is a massive difference between that and the situation of the stevedores. None of the stevedores resigned. All of the stevedores were willing to work. All of the stevedores were willing to enter into enterprise negotiations with Patrick's to improve productivity on the waterfront. All of the stevedores were prepared to admit the need for further change on the waterfront. They have been prepared both to admit that and to arrive at agreements that achieve that for some considerable period of time—a situation totally different from the pilot situation. But that was to no avail because while the MUA was prepared to play by the rules the government was not. It was prepared to conspire with massive sackings which contravened the redundancy provisions of the act, as I have already pointed out.But what did the shadow opposition spokesperson of the day have to say about the pilots? While they are words that were completely inapplicable to the situation with pilots, they have some resonance today. Let me draw the attention of the House to Mr Reith, speaking on 29 August 1989:I have a pretty simple message for the Prime Minister: `Listen, mate, this is your policy. You have revved up this dispute'. I can tell the Prime Minister that he will be wearing the consequences of the damage that the dispute will cause this country. It is no good for him to come in here with his Pontius Pilate attitude and say, `I wipe my hands of the whole thing'. That will not wash. I can tell the Prime Minister that his claim that this is an example, a microcosm, of the Opposition's policy is nonsense and deserves to be exposed . . . The only thing I can say about that is that: if we were in government things would not be in the mess they are in today.He goes on to say elsewhere in his speech:The fact is that there will be no kudos, no political marks, for the Government from the way in which this dispute is going for the simple reason that the damage that will be caused to our economy will be so great that no-one will be thanking the Prime Minister for his personal intervention. He really is completely out of touch if he thinks that, at the end, people's gratitude for his personal intervention will somehow flow over into the ballot box at the next general election.That was the advice of the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations.DT4CREANMr Crean—Who said that?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Peter Reith. That was the advice of Peter Reith at the time to the then Australian government, a piece of advice completely inapplicable to the circumstances in which he found himself but absolutely applicable to the circumstances now in which this government finds itself. The result of this is going to be a sense of insecurity amongst Australian workers, a devastation of the family life of 1,400 Australian workers, a sense that is already out there in the community of disappointment with the Prime Minister and this government that it was unable to deliver to them the sense of security that they so craved, the sense of security that comes from a government that is out there barracking for your job, out there trying to do its level best to keep you in it and out there trying to achieve for our Australian people the sort of economic livelihood and opportunity to which we all aspire.This government thinks that it has been very clever in the way in which it has handled this, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Australian people will see through this for what it is worth—and the one outfit that is not going to benefit from this is Patrick's. Patrick's have had stumblebum tactics from the day this dispute broke out, from the day they would not sign up to their enterprise agreement and therefore put themselves in a situation where they were still in negotiation with their work force.It is the actions of Patrick's which have created the unlawfulness of this act. It is the actions of Patrick's which have created a situation in which the work force on the waterfront were in a position of legitimate industrial negotiation with them. It is the actions of Patrick's—with their mad desire, their absurd desire, to try to introduce into this particular dispute all sorts of novelties, shall we say, as far as the organisation of industrial relations in this country is concerned—which have produced what is, or was, regarded by all Australians as essentially un-Australian activities. The ordinary worker in Australia has choice, the ordinary worker in Australia values their freedom and the ordinary worker in Australia has an opportunity to collectively bargain and negotiate with their employer if they so choose. That has been a right that Australians have valued for the best part of this century. It is a right that they have sought and it is a right of which they have now been deprived.In the process of the deprivation of this right and of heaping calumny on the heads of the work force on the waterfront, we have had a government enmeshed and enmired in utter hypocrisy, a government that pursues a worker's right to organise, a government that pursues the alleged rorting by social security beneficiaries, a government that pursues a supporting parent who goes and takes work as a cleaner and fails to declare that income and a government that relishes rorts when it is into them itself. We have a government which talks about rorts on the waterfront and sits here and defends a set of mechanisms whereby a 44c expenditure on shares can be turned into a $56,000 outcome which supports 12 shares being acquired at virtually nothing—about a dollar a piece—and being translated into a $2 million shareholding, a set of taxation arrangements which when put in place allow that to transfer to family members and others at virtually no tax liability at all. Why does it do it? It is one of its own.That is the real sense of outrage. As far as this government is concerned, go and rort. That is the bellwether of this government's feeling on rorts. That is what this government believes about rorts in this country. Rorts it can take or leave, depending on who is responsible. Rorts are not a major problem, provided rorts are undertaken by your mates. But what you must not do, if you are an Australian, is to stand alongside a fellow Australian and jointly decide that you will bargain for your rights as a worker. That is what you must not do as far as this government is concerned; and, even though it conceals that sentiment in the act that it put forward, what it really thinks about its act is entailed in this endorsement today of utterly unlawful activity. It ought to stand condemned by this parliament and it ought to stand condemned by the Australian people.Debate (on motion by Mr Ronaldson) adjourned.Miscellaneous273310:21:002733Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonLP10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Last night I announced my resignation from the Liberal Party to take up the position of federal parliamentary leader of the Christian Democratic Party of Australia. I will stand as a candidate for the Senate at the next election as the leader of the CDP's Senate team in Queensland. In the meantime, I will continue to provide a high standard of service to my constituents on the Gold Coast.This was not a sudden or rash decision, nor was it an easy decision. My wife Judy is in the gallery this morning with our children Tim, Sally and Lisa. At least, they were going to be in the gallery, but they are on the way. My speech notes say they are in the gallery, so we will have to assume that they are. We as a family thought long and hard about the opportunity which was presented to us. We believe that it is the right decision for us as a family. All of us here who are blessed with families do well to reflect on the fact that family is enduring. Long after we have left this volatile place and been forgotten we will still have our families, and in the end it will only be our families who are with us.I have been given a wonderful opportunity to be involved in a party which stands unequivocally for the things I believe in and have consistently stood for in my eight years as member for McPherson.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Why leave?FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—There are many reasons for my decision to quit the Liberal Party. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into detail now, and I think that, in the light of events this morning, there are far more important things for the House to do. Some of my colleagues have said my actions have hurt them in some way. To them I say sorry.I am concerned about the future for my children in this country and, whilst there are reasons to be optimistic, there are nevertheless some dark clouds on the horizon. The Wik debate has shown the potential for our image as a tolerant and harmonious society to be shattered. As a nation of many cultures, we are a model for the world, but we should not be complacent about what has made us great. We have not got everything right but we have got most things right. In regard to our indigenous people, it is time for a new understanding. It is time for us to embrace each other and to move on. It took us more than 20 years to honour our Vietnam veterans because we were ashamed of them, and many of them have suffered incredibly as a result. We are even more ashamed of what we have done to our indigenous people, and yet they are today a source of strength and inspiration for us. The greatest challenge we face is the challenge to ensure that by 2001 Australia is a unified nation where black and white people are truly reconciled. Most Australians I think understand this need and support this.Finally, I am honoured to have as my running mate for the Senate in Queensland a fine Aboriginal Australian, Kerry Blackman. Kerry is from the Gurang Gurang people. He has been married for 20 years to a Torres Strait Islander. Kerry is a small businessman—in a physical sense he is a big small businessman—and we will be a great team, a blend of youth and experience. I should point out, however, that the experience is my contribution. I thank the House.Bills2734r5062734Bill presented by Mr Downer, and read a first time.273410:25:002734Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 will give effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and will provide a legislative basis for its national implementation. The CTBT bans all nuclear weapons test explosions and all nuclear explosions for all time. It marks a watershed in international efforts to address the global threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and also brings the nuclear arms race to a definitive end.The CTBT has attracted the signatures of 149 states. Thirteen states have so far ratified. Two nuclear weapon states—France and the United Kingdom—deposited their instruments of ratification this week in New York. I signed the CTBT on behalf of Australia when it was opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996. Early ratification by Australia is critical. We are one of the 44 states whose ratification is required in order for the treaty to enter into force.Australia is universally recognised as a key player in the adoption of the CTBT and we can be justifiably proud of the part we played in achieving this outcome. We were instrumental in accelerating the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. Following the failure to achieve final consensus in the Conference on Disarmament on a draft treaty text which was all but agreed, the government took the unprecedented and courageous step of submitting the treaty to the United Nations General Assembly for adoption. The Australian sponsored resolution attracted the co-sponsorship of 127 countries and was adopted by an overwhelming majority. This was a truly great achievement by the Australian government. On presenting this bill, I would like to remind the House of Australia's longstanding and well-deserved reputation as a leading international player on arms control issues. That reputation has been enhanced by this government's imaginative and successful efforts in taking the arms control agenda forward.This government's commitment to the cause of disarmament is evident in our substantial contribution to the international movement in favour of the total elimination of antipersonnel landmines as a weapon of war. In December 1997, Australia joined over 100 countries in signing the Ottawa treaty. The next step is to get negotiations under way in the Conference on Disarmament as soon as possible as a way of complementing the Ottawa treaty and tightening the clamps on the global supply of landmines.On 3 February 1998, in my second address to the Conference on Disarmament since becoming Minister for Foreign Affairs, I urged the Conference on Disarmament to begin immediate negotiations not only on a ban on landmines transfers but also on a convention to prohibit the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. I have instructed that Australia be active in Geneva and elsewhere in promoting this so-called `cut-off' treaty as a priority arms control objective for 1998 and if necessary beyond. Just as the CTBT has brought an end to the qualitative further development of nuclear arsenals, so `cut-off' will cap the quantitative expansion of those arsenals.In another area of the arms control agenda, I recently announced a new initiative to strengthen the biological weapons convention. The government's initiative is aimed at fast-tracking the negotiations on a verification system for the biological weapons convention and highlights our serious commitment to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.By signing the CTBT, Australia has aligned itself with the basic obligation not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. Part 2 of this bill makes it an offence to engage in activities prohibited under the treaty and provides appropriately severe penalties of up to life imprisonment for offences committed under clause 6 relating to the treaty prohibitions.The CTBT will establish an intrusive verification regime. The International Monitoring System, which is the principal arm of this regime, will be a worldwide network of over 300 monitoring stations and laboratories. Australia will host 21 monitoring stations and laboratories. Part 4 of the bill provides for the establishment and the operation of monitoring facilities on Australian territory, including authorisation to gain access to these facilities. Part 3 of the bill covers the arrangements which would apply should an on-site inspection be called on Australian territory. Part 5 of the bill provides for the establishment of a national authority to manage treaty implementation in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2735r5002735Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.273510:31:002735Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill is designed to restore public confidence in country of origin labelling claims. Persistent public complaints that many labels are misleading or dishonest have given consumers good reason to be sceptical about origin labelling claims. At the same time, recent court decisions have created confusion about the meaning of such commonly used terms as `Made in Australia' and `product/produce of Australia'. As a result, the market value of Australian origin claims has been eroded to the point that producers and manufacturers are wary of making claims, and many consumers are losing confidence in labelling altogether.The fundamental problem is obvious. Consumers want simple, clear and credible labels, based on consistent and reliable standards. Unfortunately, the Trade Practices Act 1974 does not provide such standards, only a general prohibition against false or misleading representations. The result has been shifting legal interpretations and general uncertainty. This legislation will address these problems and at last deliver clarity and confidence to labelling.The Trade Practices Act will be amended to establish, for the first time, a clear general test for country of origin labelling claims. This test will apply to all representations that goods are `made in' a particular country. A separate, higher standard will be set for goods carrying the premium `product/produce of' label. To qualify for the `Made in Australia' label, a product will have to be substantially transformed in Australia and at least 50 per cent of the cost of producing or manufacturing the product must have occurred in Australia. The same test will, of course, apply to imported goods. These will be the minimum standards for goods to carry an unqualified claim of origin.The use of the substantial transformation test will align Australian law with international practice. Setting the threshold at 50 per cent will ensure that all goods labelled as `Made in Australia' will have the majority of their costs incurred in Australia. Some people may argue for a higher threshold, but this would disadvantage many local industries always considered to be producing Australian products. These firms employ Australians and invest in Australia's future. Who would tell a person working at General Motors-Holden or Ford that the cars they are making are not Australian, just because some of their components are imported? Our trading partners do not hesitate to recognise these products as Australian; nor should we.A 50 per cent threshold recognises the integration of Australia into the global economy, and the realities of modern manufacturing. The test compares favourably with the regimes applied by other developed nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan. Indeed, Canada uses the same combination of a substantial transformation test supported by a content or value-added test. The government recognises that consumers and producers also want to identify goods which are totally Australian or as near to it as possible. This legislation will restrict the application of `product of/produce of' labels to goods in which all significant ingredients or components, and all or virtually all production processes, have occurred in the country of origin.Local citrus growers, pork producers and other primary producers will be able to proudly label their products as `product/produce of Australia'. They will also know that products using a significant imported ingredient will not be entitled to the premium `product of Australia' label. These statutory definitions underpinning the use of `Made in Australia' and `product/produce of Australia' claims are the core of the new policy framework for regulating country of origin labelling. However, these definitions alone will not always provide certainty or an outcome consistent with public expectations. In the past, efforts at reform have failed because the standards proposed have been rigid. An effective regulatory regime must be flexible as well as clear in its fundamental principles.Within the framework set by the legislation, the government has made provision for further regulation in specific sectors if this is required. This flexibility does not compromise the strength of the fundamental standards being set for `made in' and `product/produce of' claims. Further regulation will need to be consistent with the standards set by the Trade Practices Act. However, the framework will allow, where necessary, additional regulations to address circumstances in specific sectors. The food industry is an obvious case. Consumers often seek additional information on food products. The seasonal availability of ingredients, and the fact that some ingredients cannot be produced in Australia for climatic or other reasons, are distinctive characteristics of the industry. In light of these factors, the government has asked the Australian New Zealand Food Authority to consider the need for such regulation in the food industry.It is necessary to give the labelling regime the flexibility to address any irregularities which may arise. To protect the integrity of the regime, the government has developed mechanisms which will allow key aspects of the general tests to be amplified by regulation. The method for calculating production or manufacturing costs, and the processes which may be included in the definition of a substantial transformation, could be refined through these provisions. In some cases, regulation could be used to confirm that unrealistic costs cannot be used to inflate Australian content levels. As it is not intended that unsophisticated processes, such as the conversion of concentrate to fruit juice, should qualify as a substantial transformation, the bill will allow for such processes to be excluded from the definition of substantial transformation. Appropriate public consultations will be required before such action is taken.Past proposals often sought to limit the range of permissible origin claims. This bill welcomes innovative marketing and will encourage the positive promotion of Australian content. One of its first effects will be to reinvigorate the well known and respected `Australian made' logo which has fallen into disuse because of legal uncertainties and confusion generally about `Made in Australia' claims. This will deliver a real benefit to many Australian firms which, in the past, have relied on the logo to enhance their profile in the marketplace. The bill also includes provisions supporting new industry based logos, encouraging further innovation. The changes proposed by the government are significant and offer the only credible approach to a lasting solution of the issue. As an indication of its commitment, the government has decided to implement a major public education and awareness campaign, supported by funding of $1.2 million in 1998-99.The bill contains a number of miscellaneous amendments. Two of these amendments deliver major reforms promised in the government's New deal: fair deal package. One amendment will extend the ability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take representative actions on behalf of small business. The second amendment will provide for the appointment of a full-time commissioner with a background in small business. Both amendments will enhance the capacity of the ACCC to assist small business.In conclusion, with this bill the government is proposing an effective labelling scheme—a scheme which will set a realistic threshold for unqualified claims while supporting premium claims and industry specific marketing initiatives. Consumers will be able to buy Australian with confidence, knowing exactly what is meant by country of origin claims. Firms will be able to label with confidence, knowing exactly what tests they must satisfy to claim origin. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2737r5012737Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.273710:40:002737Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.he main purpose of this bill is to insert into the Excise Tariff Act 1921 Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 of 1998. As part of its aviation policy, the government reduced the rate of excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline—avgas—to $0.17403 per litre, with effect from 3 July 1997.On 31 January 1998 the legislation package implementing the fuel substitution reforms, which I will discuss in greater detail shortly, came into effect. Part of these reforms involved a complete restructure of item 11 of the schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. As a result of that restructure, the duty rate for avgas was set at $0.18003 per litre. This rate did not reflect the government's 1997 decision in relation to avgas. The amendments made in this bill reduce the excise duty payable on avgas as from 3 July 1997 to $0.17403 per litre.On 31 January 1998 a package of nine acts implementing the government's budget decision to combat revenue loss through the minimisation of fuel substitution practices commenced. The prime object was to ensure that petroleum products dutiable at concessional rates of excise duty were not used as fuels in internal combustion engines. Fuel substitution usually avoids paying the correct excise. It also is a fraud on consumers and on the vast majority of those involved in the petroleum products distribution and retail system who follow the rules. Moreover, in many cases, use of petroleum products not designed for use in engines can greatly harm engine performance and expose consumers to great danger as the blends contained in these products may have a different flashpoint than the proper fuel. These acts were passed by the parliament in the 1997 spring sittings.The petroleum industry was consulted at all stages of policy development and implementation of this package. It was concerned the new structure may create misunderstandings as to how much excise was payable on some petroleum products intended for particular uses, particularly products used otherwise than as fuels. Accordingly, the technical amendments contained in this bill are designed to remove any such uncertainty. The amendments insert new subheadings of `other' in all subitems of item 11, except subitem 11(a) and 11(d), to cover petroleum products used for purposes other than as fuel. These amendments do not widen the intended scope of the fuel substitution minimisation legislation. The other amendments in this bill are technical in nature only and are discussed in the bill's explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned. Bills2738r5032738Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.273810:43:002738Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Measurement Act 1960 provides the legislative basis for the Australian national measurement system. The objective of this act is to ensure that measurements are made on a consistent basis throughout the nation and are compatible with measurements in other countries. The act was amended previously to provide for the introduction of certified measuring instruments used for regulatory purposes, such as police measurements of speed, and occupational health and safety measurements. At the same time provision was made for the use of certified reference materials to provide for improved chemical measurements in a wide range of applications in industry and government regulations such as police breath alcohol measurements and environmental monitoring.However, these previous amendments have been frustrated by a drafting error in the definition of a `certifying body' which meant that certifying bodies for both certified measuring instruments and certified reference materials could be created under the National Measurement Regulations, but existing capable bodies could not be appointed.The purpose of the bill is to amend the National Measurement Act 1960 to correct this drafting error and thereby allow the appointment of certifying bodies by the National Standards Commission both for the certification of certified measuring instruments and for the certification of certified reference materials.A second purpose of this bill is to remove the mandatory retirement age of 65 years for the executive director of the National Standards Commission in line with government policy. This will allow the commission greater flexibility in succession planning. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2738r5102738Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.273810:46:002738Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The measures proposed by this bill will complement those proposed by the Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 to enhance the effectiveness of arrangements within Australia's payments system. Presently, cheques are cleared via a specialised paper clearing stream within that system. As part of those clearing arrangements, and in accordance with longstanding practice, financial institutions collecting cheques deposited by their customers provisionally credit their customers' accounts with the amounts of the cheques deposited. The collecting institutions do not, however, normally allow their customers to withdraw those deposited funds until they are confident that a cheque will not be dishonoured.Having regard to the revocable nature of cheques, and the uncertainty that could arise in the event of the insolvency of a participant in the payments system as to whether cheques drawn on the insolvent participant had been paid or dishonoured, it is not clear that other participants in the system would have a clear and unambiguous right to reverse the provisional credits they had made to their customers' accounts.If unsettled cheques could not be treated as dishonoured, and the provisional credits reversed, collecting institutions would be required to bear the loss so occasioned and would have to prove in the winding up of the insolvent participant the amount of that loss. In that event, collecting institutions would have to wait for the reconstruction of the affairs of the insolvent participant or for the payment of a dividend in its winding up.To enhance the integrity of Australia's payments system, the bill will make it clear that, in the event of the insolvency of a participant in that system, other participants will have a clear and unambiguous right to treat unsettled cheques as `dishonoured'. This will allow them to reverse the provisional credits made to their customers' accounts and `turnback' the cheques to their customers. As a consequence, their customers will be required to seek payment in lieu of the dishonoured cheques from the drawers of the cheques—that is, the persons who wrote the cheques. The drawers will, in turn, be required to prove in the winding-up of the insolvent institution for the monies they had deposited in that institution to meet their cheques.The enhanced stability of the payments system, and ultimately the entire financial system, that will result from the measures proposed by this bill, will be to the benefit of depositors at large. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2739r5122739Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.273910:49:002739Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Cheques have been a mainstay of the Australian payments system for generations. Notwithstanding the advent of newer payment instruments in the last 20 years, including credit cards, automatic teller machines, direct credit payments and EFTPOS, cheques continue to play an important role. Each day around three million cheques worth over $17 billion are written by individuals, businesses and governments in Australia. On average, each Australian will write 55 cheques per year.Extension of cheque issuing rights to building societies, credit unions and SSPsThe bill will expand the range of institutions that can issue cheques in their own name. Credit unions and building societies will be able to issue cheques in their own name, or request their industry special services provider to provide them with a cheque issuing facility. Building societies and credit unions are presently limited to the provision of agency cheques drawn on a bank or to issue `payment orders', with the same rights and obligations under the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986 as cheques.Repeal of Payment OrdersIn practice, payment orders have come to be regarded as second-class instruments. This bill proposes the abolition of payment orders and repeal of the provisions of the act that relate to them. Transitional provisions will preserve the operation of the act to payment orders issued at the time of commencement of the bill.Miscellaneous amendmentsThe government also proposes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Cheques and Payment Orders Act to overcome limitations experienced in the practical application of the act, and to allow financial institutions greater flexibility in their cheque operations.ConclusionAs the final report of the financial system inquiry—the Wallis report—of March 1997 noted, cheque usage in Australia is high by international comparison. The government anticipates that the measures proposed by the bill, to extend to building societies, credit unions and their special services providers the right to issue cheques in their own name, will do much to:. advance the principles of competitive neutrality supported by the Wallis report;. enhance transparency in the payments system by making it clear to consumers which financial institution stands behind a cheque;. and facilitate the provision of cheaper and more efficient financial services to consumers, especially those consumers living in rural and regional Australia.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2740r4822740Debate resumed from 7 April, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Motion (by Mr Fahey) put:That the question be now put.10:57:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)80Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hanson, P. L.Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.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. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Sawford, R. W.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.11:03:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)80Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Bradford, J. W.Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hanson, P. L. Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. 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.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Sawford, R. W.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.2741Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:05:002741Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 1 to 3), omit the note, substitute: Note: Under section 242, the Minister may give the ACA directions in relation to the exercise of its powers under this Part.(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 16 and 17), omit "section 12 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 ", substitute "section 242".The new remedial directions power which is to be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1997 by the bill contains incorrect references to the minister's power to direct the Australian Communications Authority in section 12 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997. The minister's power to give directions to the ACA in relation to the customer service guarantee is found in section 242 of the Telecommunications Act. The amendments make minor technical corrections to the bill to remove the incorrect references and replace them with references to the ministerial directions power in section 242 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.11:07:002741Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—This will not be a long discussion, but I have a couple of issues I would like to raise with the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey). The minister, in those short remarks, mentioned the minister's power to direct. I do not know whether he is picking up similar comments from people involved in the Australian telecommunications industry as me, but there are a number of people who are concerned about the extent of competition in the industry today. Telstra has that monopoly inheritance. I am sure the minister has had one or two people from AAP Telecommunications, Optus and perhaps some of the independent service providers explain to him their concerns that Telstra has been using that monopoly inheritance to dominate the market and restrict competition.At the moment the country is relying on the ACCC to use the powers that the parliament gave it to ensure we have adequate competition. But I wonder whether the time is approaching when we might have a separation between the minister who has responsibility for looking after the regulation of the industry and the minister who looks after the financial benefit that flows through to consolidated revenue from the dividends that are paid.You, as the finance minister, would expect to be the minister who would be the shareholders' representative until any sale was approved by parliament and completed. You can certainly imagine, Minister, that there are a number of people who believe there is a conflict of interest in Senator Alston being the minister for communications allegedly responsible for regulating the industry and Senator Alston being the minister who represents the Commonwealth of Australia in certain decisions that might be made that could influence the value of the Commonwealth shareholding in Telstra. The minister might tell us whether he or the government has given any consideration to separating those responsibilities to make sure that fair decisions are being made about the decisions that do directly affect the level of competition in the Australian telecommunications market.11:09:002742Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has raised an issue of conflict—that is, the role that a shareholding minister in a government business enterprise might play to look after and be responsible for the operation of the business and the value of the shares held by the government on behalf of the taxpayers and how that contrasts and perhaps conflicts with a regulatory minister, frequently and almost invariably the portfolio minister, who has certain duties and obligations in respect of the regulatory regime and of course the customer service obligations.From a practical point of view, since the government made the decision that the minister for finance should be the joint shareholding minister of all government business enterprises a year or so ago, I have found my colleagues fairly accommodating, obliging and rational in the approach to discussions that take place. But I certainly have seen reference to the fact that there is an inherent conflict between both roles, and it may well be appropriate for the roles to be separated so that each minister, on behalf of their respective responsibilities, might make vigorous, appropriate and proper arguments from the perspective that they come from. If agreement cannot be reached, then of course there is always the opportunity for such matters to be brought back to cabinet.Those matters are the subject of some discussion at present between me and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston). We certainly are aware of the debate. We recognise the amount of comment that there has been about this in recent times from various aspects of the industry and from various other commentators. I am confident that there will be an appropriate resolution of that matter.In relation to the way in which the former government operated in this particular area of government business enterprises, the honourable member for Dobell would be fully aware from his former ministerial responsibilities that the portfolio minister was the shareholding minister and the regulation minister. He or she wore all hats. There was no opportunity for the roles to be separated. Now there is clearly a shareholders' representative and a company's representative in terms of the value and assets of the company. As per the decision of this government, a minister has been added—the minister for finance. The member for Dobell now suggests that it should be taken a step further; although Labor certainly did not recognise it when they were in government.I accept that there are some arguments. I will continue to have that discussion with the relevant minister in respect of communications. I am confident that we will resolve that matter to the benefit of the industry and the community.11:12:002743Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I wish to speak to the amendments moved in my name. I want to make the following comments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, you are out of order. Your amendments have not been moved. Resume your seat.11:12:002743Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I expect these will be my last comments on these particular amendments. Whether the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) chooses to reply is up to him. Far be it from me to seek to argue in this House for his responsibilities and powers to be extended. There is always the chance that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is sitting back in his office watching this debate; but I think it is probably unlikely.I accept the minister's statement that, during the time I had the honour to be the minister for communications, I was the shareholders' representative and the minister with portfolio responsibility for regulating the industry. The difference is that there was a more hands-on role in regulating the telecommunications industry in those days. The legislative regime then allowed for the minister to issue directions to Austel. Austel was a much more aggressive regulator. It had much stronger powers to act speedily than the ACCC seems to have today.The feedback I seem to be getting is that Telstra, the 600 pound gorilla, has become Telstra, the 600 tonne godzilla, in the way it is behaving in the telecommunications market. To date the ACCC has not been as aggressive as Austel was in making sure that the other players besides Telstra are getting a fair deal in the market. Minister, if you were successful in persuading the Prime Minister to give you the full and sole responsibility for the share holder responsibilities, Senator Alston would then be freed up from having to worry about you and your responsibilities and looking after the taxpayers' financial interests. It would then perhaps let Senator Alston be an aggressive hands-on minister who pressures the ACCC, if they fail to make sure that we have the maximum amount of competition.At the end of the day, if we get our way and we get maximum competition in the telecommunications market, you will get fewer dividends and a lower sale price. That has to flow. If we get more aggressive competition and lower prices, that has to affect the sale price and the dividends that Telstra receives, unless there is a massive expansion in the level of services. We would hope that, if there were an expansion in services, that would free up the ability of Telstra to cut prices even further, which again would affect you, the dividends you get and the sale price.We on this side would be interested to know whether the government will take that plunge and separate that responsibility between you and Senator Alston. Then we might see Senator Alston finally be brave enough to make some of those decisions or at least try to influence the ACCC to make sure that the ACCC does the job which the parliament expected it to do.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Before I call the next speaker, I would like to clarify what appeared to be a little confusion when I asked the member for Moore to resume his seat. The member for Moore indicated he was going to speak about his amendments. He cannot speak to his amendments until they are moved. He cannot move them until these amendments are dealt with.11:16:002743Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—If I could just speak briefly obviously not on my amendments but on the government's amendments. Yesterday in the House I asked a question of the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith), who represents the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), about Telstra's role in relation to Internet service and Internet access provision. One of the great problems, in my view, in our telecommunications system in relation to Internet service and access provision is that Telstra is, in essence, in the same business as the people to whom it supplies lines to conduct their own businesses. In my view, that is a gross conflict of interest. I think that should be abolished as a matter of grave urgency.I have an my interest in the Internet service provision and access provision industry and have made inquiries over some time about the problems associated with access to lines. Generally speaking, Telstra appears to have done the right thing. It appears to have provided lines reasonably swiftly to IAPs and they, to my knowledge, have not made substantial complaints about Telstra's slowness. Nonetheless, the fact that Telstra is in business with big pond Internet access is in itself a conflict of interest because, in essence, Telstra is providing the very same service as its competitors but they cannot do their service without Telstra providing them with lines. In my view, not only is that a conflict of interest; it is anti-competitive and in fact flouts very seriously what the coalition government would consider to be its competition policy.The Internet will be one of the major growth industry areas in telecommunications service provision. It is my view that one of the most serious impediments it could have is having a conflict of interest or an anti-competitive influence like this. It behoves the minister to do something about this matter of urgency.I was interested to hear the minister representing the minister for communications say in response to my question yesterday about how long this particular monopoly would last that he did not know. I know the minister representing the minister for communications is one of the best informed people in this parliament about the telecommunications industry. With his having been the Telecommunications Ombudsman in the past and his being an intelligent minister who performs well, it is surprising that he was not in a position to answer this question.I suggest that the monopoly will continue. If that is the case and the sale of Telstra goes ahead on the basis that Telstra enjoys what is a very substantial monopolistic role in the provision of Internet access service to the Australian community, I think that is a matter of great shame to the coalition government. It should not proceed unless those sorts of issues are overcome. I know the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), being an advocate for greater competition, would probably agree with me, but unfortunately he is responsible for the carriage of the bill for another minister, another department.I must point out that, as the shadow minister observed in his speech, this represents also a dividend for Telstra. Telstra's monopoly in this area is a considerable asset and naturally enough the government, in trying to realise the greatest possible return from the sale of its asset, is unlikely to withdraw that monopoly. Therefore, the government has a conflict of interest. This is one of those classic cases where a government, in endeavouring as it says to introduce wider competition into a particular market, is in actual fact restricting competition through its very own administrative or legislative arrangements in relation to Telstra.So here we have a situation where a government, committed as it says to competition policy—I will talk very soon about another aspect of competition between digital and analog networks—is going to market Telstra to the community and elsewhere with a monopoly built in—a monopoly that, in my view, is a very serious impediment to the development of Internet services in this country and something that the government ought to remedy as soon as possible.11:20:002744Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—We are now seeing the start of the adjustments. We have now the start of what I expect will be literally hundreds of amendments to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 as the government starts to grapple and come to terms with what really is a total conflict of interest. It is selling a monopoly and trying to maximise its value at the same time as it is pretending the monopoly will do all things for all people.People in the bush who are concerned about their future services should be extremely concerned that the government has not moved further on these amendments today. The fact is the minister can no longer direct—a major change in government relinquishment of powers but for a price: to maximise the value—and we are now seeing some fancy footwork to try to pretend that that is not the case.This whole issue has come before us out of nowhere, without thought, without public debate and without government examination of the policy issues involved. The amendments the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) has moved are the first of many. The points raised by the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) regarding the real aspects of competition, who judges whom and who is responsible are the tip of a very big iceberg. The comments made by the member for Moore (Mr Filing) in terms of competing interests within Telstra and its users is another huge iceberg.Today the convergence of technologies—and not simply physical technologies but software and educational technologies—is so profound that it will transform society as we know it over the next 30 or 40 years. In the middle of that will be Telstra and a government trying in the years ahead to come to terms with what it is doing right now: laying the framework that will have massive implications for decades to come.We inherited an organisation built up over almost a century by the Australian people, adapting and changing as it went, staying at pace with the world—and, in many cases, in front of the world because of our geographical problems. We are, in a moment, at the stroke of a pen, transforming it. The thought that that involves and the implications of that are so profound that to be dealing with it in this way is disgraceful. These amendments are simply a minuscule attempt to modify, but they also give the government some pretence that it actually understands the issues.Those Australians who have helped build Telstra—and that involves every Australian—all own Telstra. Government assets vary in terms of access but, unlike other assets, we all use a telephone. The discussion by government members of the idea that there is somehow some competition about who sells the most and when has been a farcical one. I think the points being made in terms of Internet are simply a very small part of what the government is doing now with no public debate, with no understanding of either the technology or its implication. For the convergence of the technologies, the capacity to bundle and the implications for this whole issue one only has to look at the impact of Microsoft in the United States and at the current legal action between Microsoft and the American Justice Department and the implications for market power, market dominance and how that works.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have got to put him out of his misery. It goes to relevance. What the member is speaking about it totally irrelevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the member for North Sydney. Resume your seat. There is no point of order. The debate has been very wide ranging.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—This is one of the up-and-coming young government members who fancies his knowledge of communications. He was put into a safe seat as a rising star. He is out there selling the airport fiasco, and I watched his speech with interest last night. This is about competition. It is about the fact that the American government cannot take on Microsoft; about the fact that Microsoft can do over the American government, given all the apparatus and all the experience they have. We have this bunch of incompetents opposite, who could not run a chook house, trying to tell us they know how to frame a monopoly in private ownership for decades to come, but the fact is they do not. (Time expired)11:25:002745Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—When this Telstra legislation goes through today, this day will be remembered as a day of infamy, shame and betrayal.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—These are technical amendments.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—These amendments that are being proposed at the present time, as the minister at the table indicates, are technical amendments; nevertheless, they are designed to make some peripheral change to the detail, to the essence of this legislation. What I want to emphasise is that, as far as the legislation is concerned, they make no significant change.What I am particularly concerned about is the fact that there have been claims made by the government, in supporting and promoting this legislation, that in some way the interests of the national community would be best served by privatising Telstra. You will remember that it was estimated initially that the first third of Telstra would bring in about $8 billion; it is now estimated that the sale of the second two-thirds of Telstra will bring in $45 billion. If that initial estimate was correct, these proposed sales should bring in nothing more than $16 billion. So, of course, the government was seriously out in its calculations. It is also seriously out in the claims that it is making that, as a result of these sales, the Australian people generally will be—HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have been most patient. These are technical amendments. There is a wrong numerical reference in the bill as it now stands. These amendments seek to change that numerical reference to a section of the Telecommunications Act. Whilst I am trying to be patient about the debate, I ask that you bring all members back to the question before the committee: that is, a very narrow question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Minister for Finance and Administration. When I responded to the previous point of order by the member for North Sydney, I was referring to the debate on the bill itself and, of course, the reality is that this is a debate on the amendments. Everybody speaking should restrict their remarks to the amendments—as I am sure the honourable member for Charlton will.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—Mr Deputy Speaker, another ruling of great wisdom from you. The point that I am emphasising is the fact that these amendments which are being proposed by the government make no significant difference to the core of this legislation—the nature of the legislation, the purposes of the legislation and the impact that the legislation will have. It is perfectly in order for me—as you have indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker—to proceed in that way.The claim has been made that the Australian people generally will benefit. I want to emphasise that, of 18 million Australians, less than two million Australians purchased part of that one-third sale of Telstra. So, while there may have been two million purchasing it, there are 16 million who lost out as a result of it. Those shares were made available to the initial purchasers at something between $1.95 and $2 each; at the end of last week, they were selling for $3.89—almost $4. The difference, of course, represents the real value which has been ripped off the Australian national community to the extent of something like $8,000 million.Where was that $8,000 million transferred from? The ownership of the Australian wage earners who did not have the funds to be able to take advantage of that sale. It has been transferred to those people who bought the first third of Telstra—including 30 per cent represented by foreign interests. I take no pleasure in referring to this, but exactly the same thing has happened every time privatisation has been undertaken. For example, in the case of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the shares sold for $2.30, yet at the end of last week shares in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were selling for in excess of $11—which means that the losses to the Australian public, in that particular case, were another $600 million.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Who sold it?5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—The minister says, `Who sold it?' The implication, of course, is that that sale was made by the previous government. Yes it was; I take no pride in that. The point that I am making is that it does not matter who the government is that sells off these public assets, they are always undersold and the people who benefit are those people who have the financial capacity to buy them—they are not the people that I represent in Charlton. (Time expired)11:30:002746Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—We were told last night that we will be here until after midnight, yet the government has still gagged this debate. I was prevented from speaking in the broad debate and I am now forced to speak in the debate on the amendment. In that context, let me read to you something from the explanatory memorandum, which will give some indication of the competence of those opposite:The amendments make a minor technical correction to the Bill to remove incorrect references to the Ministerial directions power in section 12 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 and replace them with references to the Ministerial directions power in section 242 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 .They could not even get the act right. They could not run a chook house. This bill was cobbled together in haste and shows absolute and total incompetence. They are trying to tell the public at large that they know what they are doing and that they can actually manage the shift of a monopoly to private ownership and to one-third foreign ownership—35 per cent foreign ownership of a total value of $60 billion, which will all be foreign debt. Make no mistake about that. Let me explain that.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Newcastle is clearly digressing from the debate at hand, which is about technical amendments and the fact that we are substituting one name of an act for another. In this case he is talking about the foreign ownership levels. I ask you to bring him back to the topic at hand, which is the amendments proposed by the minister.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Whilst the honourable member for Newcastle is aware that the debate is broad ranging, I do have some feeling for what the honourable member for North Sydney said. We should really contain our remarks to the bill before the House at the moment.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I accept that and I understand your point. My point is that we are making corrections in reference to an act. The government are so incompetent that in the legislation they are referring to the wrong acts. In saying that I am trying to suggest that they may also be referring to wrong things elsewhere in the legislation. I think that would actually be in order.I thought the member for North Sydney would make the point about the foreign debt and I wanted to make sure I explained what I meant. The fact is that nowadays foreign owners do not buy things in cash, they lend their money to their subsidiary in Australia.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question before the House is about the change of two numbers in a section. It is a technical discrepancy which is being amended. There is no capacity to speak about other than the question before the House and I would ask you to draw the member back to the narrowness of the question before the House.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, on that point of order: the amendments are about ministerial discretion. I would have thought that, far from being narrow, it was quite wide. These amendments, far from being of a minor technical nature, are a pretty major change—getting the wrong act.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Newcastle has the floor and I would ask him in the very short time he has to contain his remarks to the amendments.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I certainly will. They are about two things: they are about the wrong act and they are about ministerial discretion, which is about what the government does. In other words, I am trying to canvass here what the government understands itself to be doing in the first place—and it has got that wrong because it has got the wrong act—and, secondly, how it sees its role in terms of the minister's capacity and understanding of the issues involved.I am talking to a prospective minister opposite, the member for North Sydney, who is such an expert on communications. I am pointing out to him that when the ministers talk about foreign debt and foreign ownership they are misleading the Australian people because they are one and the same thing. The foreign ownership in Telstra will be foreign debt. It will be let to an Australian subsidiary, it will be a debt against the country forever and a day, and it will pay dividends offshore which will pay the interest on the loans. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Fahey) agreed to:That the question be now put.Amendments agreed to.11:36:002748Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I move amendments Nos 1 to 4:(1) Schedule 1, page 7, after item 3 (after line 22) insert:3A Section 360 Repeal the section.(2) Schedule 1, page 7, after item 3 (after line 22), insert:3B Section 361 Repeal the section.(3) Schedule 1, page 7, after item 3(after line 22), insert:3C Section 362 Repeal the section.(4) Schedule 1, page 7, after item 3 (after line 22), insert:3D Section 363 Repeal the section.The purpose of these amendments is to repeal the provisions in the Telecommunications Act which force the closure of the analog mobile network. In 1992 the then minister for communications, former Senator Bob Collins, entered into a contract with Vodafone which has the following provisions. The first is that the analog network be closed down on 31 December 1999, and this appears in clauses 3.3 to 3.7 of the contract. The second is that the minister may make variations to the law for the purposes of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers of telecommunications services, in clause 3.2(c), or for the purposes of providing emergency services, in clause 3.2(e).On 4 May 1993 that contract was tabled in both houses as a disallowable interest. No-one moved that it be disallowed so it was, in effect, ratified by unanimous consent at the expiration of 15 sitting days. Senator Richard Alston was the shadow minister for communications at the time. He spoke 728 times in 1993.MG4LEEMr Lee—How many?QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—It was 728 times and, as far as I can see, he did not once mention analog mobile phones in any of the 728 times he spoke.On the day the contract was tabled, he asked a question about the expense claims of one of Paul Keating's former staffers. So the contribution to the debate of this shadow minister for communications on the day the mobile analog network was being put on the chopping block was to ask about the expense claims of one of the former staffers of Paul Keating. It is therefore misleading of Senator Alston to say that this is all Labor's fault. I am being fair-minded here. He had an opportunity to prevent the Labor government entering into that contract and did not take it, but that is water under the bridge. In 1993 everyone thought that digital was a great idea. In 1998 the shortcomings of digital are plain for all to see. The government has failed to take the only course that would solve this problem, and that is to repeal sections 360 to 363 of the Telecommunications Act and sit down with Vodafone to negotiate an end to the no-analog clause of the contract. The government's failure to do this is nothing short of irresponsible. The longer it is left the more expensive it will be because Vodafone is building more and more network all the time.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Hear, hear!QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—They are in your electorate, obviously. On 11 March the coalition took office. It should have acted promptly to bring Vodafone's contract to an end because by then anyone who knew anything about telecommunications knew that the digital systems coverage was hopelessly inferior to that of the analog system. On 1 July the Telecommunications Act 1997 became law. Sections 360 to 363 were essentially the same as clause 3.6 of the Vodafone contract. If these sections are repealed it will permit Telstra to continue operating the AMPS network as long as it wishes. It will also permit others, including Vodafone, local shire councils and entrepreneurs, to establish analog base stations. There is great interest in doing this, Mr Deputy Speaker Dondas. You would know that, coming from the Northern Territory. It will permit Telstra to continue operating the AMPS as long as it wishes.For example, the Carrathool Shire Council wants to establish an analog base station to cover the town of Hillston and surrounding area, including 100 kilometres of the Kidman Way, the new road that will cut 200 kilometres off the Melbourne to Darwin road distance. An Australian company in Perth makes analog base stations and at present cannot sell its product in Australia because of sections 360 to 363. Repealing these sections will generate an opportunity in high tech manufacturing right here in Australia; all digital base stations to this day are imported.As I mentioned earlier in my previous contribution, it is a philosophical tenet of the coalition government to support greater competition. But here we have a telecommunications act which is anti-competitive in nature in the marketplace. We are demanding that the analog mobile phone network is allowed to continue in competition with the digital service so that people have the fullest possible choice and can make that choice as consumers to get the best possible service no matter where they live—whether they are in the middle of Sydney as is the member for North Sydney, in regional Australia as in your case, Mr Deputy Speaker, or in the electorates of those other members who represent regional areas of Australia that are so badly affected by the poor quality digital service.11:41:002749Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—If anyone wanted a good example of the situation in which an Independent can move an amendment and have absolutely no responsibility for the outcome of that amendment—FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member is casting reflections on the motivations of the mover and the forms of the House. I would have thought that you should keep him in line. He is suggesting that a member cannot move amendments.QT4FILINGMr Filing—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask you to ask the member to withdraw that reflection on the reasons for me moving these amendments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—The honourable member for North Sydney should be aware that any member of this parliament has the right to be able to move amendments to legislation.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I was not disputing that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was saying that if ever there needed to be a good example of Independents—generally, not specifically—moving amendments and having absolutely no sense of responsibility about the outcome and the impact of those amendments then here it is. The member for Moore (Mr Filing) is moving spurious amendments which seek to undermine the contractual arrangement made between the then Labor government—I note that the former minister for communications is here in the chamber—and Optus and Vodafone that by 1 January 2000 AMPS would be phased out immediately. It was a drop-dead date. It was not a phase out; it was a drop-dead date.It was a deal between the ALP federal government and Optus, Vodafone and Telstra. I can only suggest that the major beneficiary of this spurious attempt to try to extend the life of AMPS is Telstra. Why? Telstra absolutely dominate the AMPS market. Through this amendment the member for Moore is reducing competition and giving Telstra the greatest leg-up that they have had in years. He is trying to preserve the Cobb and Co. infrastructure provided by the Labor Party in 1992. It is a Cobb and Co. infrastructure because AMPS will be outdated by CDMA and by D-AMPS. The relocation of the spectrum out of analog is going to be used for new and better technology.In deference to the terrific work of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) in relation to this matter, on 5 February the minister announced that he would try to do everything he could within the contractual constraints provided by the Labor Party to try to preserve mobile phone communications for people who currently have AMPS and do not have digital technology. Of course, that includes an urgent review by the Australian Communications Authority, and a number of other measures that ensure that, at the end of the day, people in rural Australia who have analog and do not have digital are not left, on the drop-dead date of 1 January 2000, without mobile phone technology in their area.I wonder what the motivation is for this. Perhaps the member for Moore could answer this at another time, because he is pushing the federal government, the Commonwealth, into a protracted legal case between the Commonwealth and Vodafone because of the original pledge of the Australian Labor Party in 1992. Vodafone deliberately have not got into analog technology because of that drop-dead date. This amendment will have the single most significant impact on the value of Optus and Vodafone and it will be the greatest impediment to competition in mobile phone technology rather than our trying to create a competitive environment and ensure that people in rural Australia are getting the very best technology—the latest technology and complete technology—that delivers mobile phone access right across the nation. (Time expired)11:46:002750Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—We have heard a very interesting contribution from the member for Moore (Mr Filing) highlighting a problem in the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . One of the things that I would say about these amendments is that they really highlight some of the dangers that are presented in privatising Telstra. But isn't the issue the fact that digital has not been rolled out throughout Australia? I remember contributions by the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is vocal on most things, if not all, saying how much he regretted the fact that in parts of his electorate there was no mobile service at all.What the coalition says basically is, `Look, don't worry, there is a marketplace. All these problems will get sorted out in the marketplace and you will see this miraculous roll-out of technology to give people in rural and regional Australia mobile access.' We, from a Labor Party perspective, say that sometimes the marketplace does not sort these things out; sometimes the shareholders do not actually take decisions in the national interest; and there is a legitimate role for government to ensure that no Australian is particularly disadvantaged. The roll-out of mobile technology and the uptake by Australians has been absolutely phenomenal and we ought to talk about mums and dads missing out but, putting that aside, small business and farmers in rural and regional Australia are the ones who so grievously suffer by a paucity of service.I believe that the commitment to make it exclusively GSM was a bipartisan issue. I think that is what the honourable member for Moore points out when he says that the shadow minister, Professor Ergas—I am sorry, the shadow minister, Senator Alston!—spoke more than 700 times that particular year and never once mentioned this particular issue. I regret that some of the means of redress have been removed. Indeed, the so-called technical minor amendments dealing with ministerial discretion have actually been removed from this legislation rather than providing rural and regional Australia with extra opportunities to ensure, through the parliament and through the executive government, that their needs are met.So, whilst I do not support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Moore, I think it is entirely appropriate that members on the opposition side should be allowed to move amendments. Even if these amendments do not get up, I believe he is legitimately highlighting a problem for rural and regional Australia that has been picked up in the earlier, wider debate.11:49:002750Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I think the House recognises that they made a dreadful mistake back in 1992 when this deal was signed with Vodafone. The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill removes the jurisdiction of the minister in relation to Telstra. It says that it would be inappropriate to retain such a power in a situation where the Commonwealth no longer holds a majority equity interest in Telstra. That goes right to the heart of this particular set of amendments, which I support strongly, because—despite what the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) says—these amendments are very relevant to this particular debate and this bill in fact.The relevance is clearly established in the preamble to the bill, which sets out the policy objectives and reaffirms the parliament's commitment to the comprehensive community and regulatory safeguards recently enacted in the 1997 telecommunications legislation. There must be a regulatory framework on mobiles and it should not include the abolition of the analog mobile coverage. I was accused the other night of not showing any interest in this until recent days, and the member for North Sydney graciously admitted that I had had a long interest in this and had spoken strongly during the telecommunications debate on this very analog issue.It is promised that a meaningful analog system will be maintained. That is absolutely absurd in relation to a seat like Calare because Calare would be regarded as having an adequate digital service, according to the definitions, and in fact it does not. I get a kilometre out of Orange and the service is absolutely appalling and yet the analog system works very well. As I said in the debate last week on this particular issue, it is a service—a communications tool—of absolute necessity and it is not Cobb and Co. technology. As the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) pointed out in his contribution, the CDMA technology available from the US now is world's best and would mesh with the existing analog system to provide an Australia-wide coverage that would be far superior to anything yet tested and on offer.Vodafone tell me that they are relying on satellite technology to cover all of Australia. They are not going to roll out digital across the length and breadth of inland New South Wales and further afield; they are relying on the satellite service. At $4,000 a handset and $4 a minute, just who will be able to access this technology? We have something in place now that does the job.The Communications Authority fact sheet tells us that they will examine each regional area which currently receives an analog service to determine whether the phase-out of the analog service would leave that area without alternative mobile coverage. Calare is one seat that would not fit under that category. It will not keep analog in an area like that. In fact, residents of areas determined by the government to retain access to the analog mobile network should be aware that analog handsets will not work outside these areas. This is a deliberate plan to cripple AMPS; it is not a plan to restore and retain services of any use in regional Australia. And Vodafone has given the game away by admitting to me that it is relying on satellite. It is not about to roll out digital beyond the major lucrative markets, the regional markets and along the highways; and even there it does not work.Like television and broadcast, telephony provision is a privilege. Two wrongs, the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra, do not make a right. All this debate has centred around who did things first. Well, we have made mistakes. We should sit down, as the member for Moore (Mr Filing) said, renegotiate this whole analog question and, if these sections are repealed, Rylstone Kandos, which has no mobile, would be able to enter the market as an individual provider. That is real opening up of the market, using technology that Australian Defence Industries, which we are also about to flog off, makes and sells offshore but cannot sell locally. We could do it ourselves. The shire councils struggling for funds could have a revenue source if they were able to put up this technology. It is the best technology, it must remain, and this is one means of highlighting that and hopefully getting some sense in this whole debate.11:54:002751Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonLP10—I intend to exercise my new-found rights to speak in here on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. We have not had a chance to have a party meeting so far this morning, but I have actually had the opportunity to listen objectively to a debate in this place in a way that I have not been able to do in a long time. Having done so—and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth), who are at the table, are looking down and frowning—I must say that the member for Calare (Mr Andren) made an excellent contribution and the member for Moore (Mr Filing) made an excellent contribution. Frankly, I was persuaded. I think the member for Moore is right on this particular issue. I think he is right because he is speaking out on behalf of rural and regional Australians, and the Gold Coast, and I am coming to that.I am not a particularly high-tech person. I am learning to use my computer. But, since we got digital phones on the Gold Coast—and we have got the biggest per capita use of mobile phones on the Gold Coast of anywhere in the world—most of them do not work. I can only assume there is something very wrong with the existing system.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—The phones, or the people who use them?FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—The phones do not work. We could talk about a lot of other areas that are similar. We have got all this satellite TV and cable TV coming, but some of my constituents cannot even get free to air TV. Despite the fact that I have been raising that with the government for eight years now, we still have parts of the Gold Coast—this is not Parkes or somewhere out west—KL6ANDRENMr Andren—Bathurst-Orange.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Or Bathurst or Orange. This is the Gold Coast, this is 100 kilometres from Brisbane, and we cannot get free to air TV in some parts of the Gold Coast.I think the message we have heard and the amendments moved by the member for Moore simply make sense. To me, sitting here, they make sense. I ask myself why the government is doing this, and I think I heard the member for Calare saying that it is something that was done in the past and it is all too hard now to do something about it, so we end up with something that is far from satisfactory.QT4FILINGMr Filing—It is inferior.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—As both the member for Moore and the member for Calare have said, it is actually inferior. Why the government would be supporting something that is inferior is quite beyond me to understand.The other thing I should say is that I am absolutely in favour of competition. I do not share the views of the member for Chifley (Mr Price) entirely. I believe that markets almost invariably make better decisions than governments and bureaucrats do, but I understand that markets have to be tempered with some government direction and involvement on occasions. But it seems to me that this is an anti-competitive measure, and that is a very good reason for me to be supporting the amendments by the member for Moore and also supporting strongly what I think were really sensible remarks by the member for Calare. 11:58:002752Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I would like to outline our position on the amendments moved by the member for Moore (Mr Filing) and argued very eloquently by the member for Chifley (Mr Price), the member for Calare (Mr Andren), the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) and the member for Moore. It might be helpful if we all take ourselves back to 1992, when this decision was made. It was a decision made by the then Minister for Communications and Transport, Bob Collins, and it was on the advice of Austel after Austel had conducted an inquiry into what is a very complicated issue.The Austel report in 1992 made the very obvious point that we could not just rely on the existing analog mobile telephone system because Telstra owned the whole spectrum and ran the entire mobile network and that one of the advantages in moving towards digital was that you had new spectrum you could sell off to a number of new entrants and that was the way we got competition in mobile telephony: by having Optus, Vodafone and Telstra able to have their own spectrum and able to compete with each other on mobile telephone rates. The result of that has been big reductions in the cost of mobile handsets and some reductions in the price of mobile calls, and that has benefited consumers. We are also told, and it is accurate, that there would be encryption and therefore greater privacy for telephone calls if we moved to digital.Another thing we were told is that we would get clearer calls. I think that was the one claim that was made way back in 1992 that has not been fulfilled by the technology. I am sure that the people in the gallery and in the parliament here this morning would know that it is often very difficult to get clear signals with the digital system. There are large parts of rural and regional Australia where you cannot get any signal at all and the member for Calare has highlighted some of those today.One of the concerns that we in the opposition have about the member for Moore's attempt to put a lance through the boil of this debate is that his amendment might have the parliament exposing the public, through the government, to a very large compensation bill. The opposition would want to have a great deal more confidence about what the consequences would be before we would be prepared to support the member for Moore's amendment.The point I would make to the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), who is at the table, is that no doubt there is a problem out there that needs to be addressed. That is why members are raising this issue in the parliament every day. My colleague the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) has, I know, spoken about this within the Labor Party, based on his concerns about what is going to happen when AMPS shuts down. Some of us have to remember that, if this current problem is the result of an agreement between the federal government, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, then surely another agreement between the federal government, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone can undo any financial exposure. I would have thought that it is open to the government to say to Frank Blount, Mr Anderson and the boss of Vodafone that we need this issue resolved. Telstra can enter into some commercial negotiations with Optus and Vodafone about what payment it might make to them to persuade them to allow the analog system to continue. There is a possible solution out there if we can try to think creatively and do it in a way that does not expose the taxpayer to large sums of money.I would like to ask the Minister for Finance and Administration a question; he might take it on notice if he cannot answer it today: if all of the analog system is shut down can we be assured that the current GSM digital system is able to cope with all of the customers? I have heard some speculation that, if all of the analog customers move to digital, the system would be swamped in some parts of the country. If the minister is not able to answer that on the spot today, I would be more than happy if he could agree to provide me with an answer in writing. The parliament, in debating this issue, should have some reassurance that, if we are not going to accept the member for Moore's amendment, the digital system will be able to cope with the massive needs that will be placed on it in the year 2000, especially in places like Sydney. With the Olympics, international visitors with digital phones will expect them to work in this country.12:03:002753Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I have noted the amendments moved in respect of sections 360 and 363 by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Filing). These amendments amount to a change to what has been entered into by way of a legally binding contract by the former government, particularly with Vodafone. Such a proposal is totally unworkable. It exposes the taxpayers of Australia not only to massive compensation but to ridicule. I just wonder about the simplistic approach—the populist approach—taken by Independents to any debate. They come into this House and put up a proposal that alters legally binding contractual obligations. It gives a clear message to any investor in this country: do so at your peril.I spent some time this morning with an investor from the electorate of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Andren). I have known the company for some years and have had dialogue with them over many years. The thought occurred to me that if that company, which has put a massive amount of money into the electorate of Calare, is going to be told by this parliament that the parliament may reverse its decisions on contractual obligations at the whim of a populist Independent, that company and no-one else onshore or offshore will ever again put an investment into this country.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I accept that the member for Calare has some modesty about that. That was a very nasty inference which I personally found offensive as a parliamentarian—reflecting on the motives of a person in this House. The minister should withdraw and apologise.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—There is no apology.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—Firstly, I am making the point that when there is a decision by government that decision should have certainty. When legally binding contracts that flow from such a decision are entered into, they cannot be overturned in a way which this amendment proposes to do. The second point I want to make—and it was made very properly by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey)—is that when it comes to technology and regional Australia, surely those who represent regional Australia would want the best technology. To suggest that we extend on analog in respect of mobile phones well into the next century condemns rural and regional Australia to second-rate technology. The third point is that it is simply not practical to suggest that there is a capacity to extend on at this point when we are well down the track in the changeover to digital. As I have indicated, Vodafone in particular, under the arrangements and contracts that were entered into, have simply embarked upon that technology and they would simply be taken out of business if there is an extension there.I reaffirm the point made by the honourable member for North Sydney that nothing is more supportive of Telstra's monopoly than these proposed amendments. Telstra have the monopoly in analog. The new carriers have moved into digital. The monopoly would be extended. It seems to me that every argument I have heard from the opposition and from those who oppose this bill on the crossbenches is about trying to ensure that the competition against Telstra is opened up. The regulations required that to happen as at 1 July last year. As each year and each month goes by, that will happen.Let me give a quick run down of what the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) said by way of a press release on 5 April on the solution to the problem:Yes, government acknowledges that there are blank spots when it comes to mobile telephony in rural and regional Australia.That is being addressed, but is it being addressed quickly enough? That remains to be seen; nevertheless, the government is conscious of the need to ensure that the service is across Australia and that that service continues after the required phasing in of digital occurs as at 1 January 2000.The package released by my colleague in another place indicated that all areas of regional Australia which currently receive mobile phone coverage will continue to enjoy reasonably equivalent coverage after the year 2000. As for the elements of the package, the ACA will conduct an urgent review of the current regional AMPS service. That will be completed by 30 June 1998. (Time expired)12:08:002754Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I will answer a couple of points that the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) has raised. The first relates to his comments about the actual technology. The argument that the technology is better, as my understanding is, in latter times has never been raised; it has always been the subject of the contract.Let me give you an example from an interview with one of the government's own experts from the ACA, the head of ACA's analog closure education program, Mr Warren Duncan. The interviewer on 3AW put to Mr Duncan that a knowledgeable caller had suggested that digital coverage would never cover the whole of Australia, that it was impossible. This is Mr Duncan's answer—the answer of the government's own expert:That could very well be the case, but the difference really is that . . . it's because of the nature of the technology . . . Analog can stretch out over quite considerable distances whereas, dependent upon where the base station is, digital may not cover the same extent . . . Those words on the service, on the technology, are from the mouth of one of the government's own experts. Here he is, damning the digital coverage when asked the question, `Can it provide the same sort of coverage that analog could?'It was once said of the Bourbon dynasty: they learnt nothing but remembered everything. I must say that one of the great criticisms of the community about government in modern Australia is that, whenever a mistake is made by government, it either tries to cover it up or compounds the mistake by pretending that it was not a mistake in the first place. That seems to be the situation here. We have had the argument from the Minister for Finance and Administration that somehow the people who are supporting analog phone networks are neo-Luddites, somehow wedded to sort of steam engine technology.Yet, at the cutting edge of the world's marketplace in mobile phone services in the United States, the analog network is doing very well, thank you very much. In fact, the analog network in the United States is highly competitive, cheap, and provides an excellent service. Because the United States is not as hidebound as we are to sort of leap into the first new technology that appears on the block, it actually has better digital technology that we do. The United States has the situation where its digital technology and its analog technology can go hand in hand. So you can get a phone that will roam in both types of technology—but you cannot do that here in Australia.The minister—the same minister who, in the year that analog technology was mooted for destruction, spoke 728 times, never once mentioning the analog network—was trying to pretend on a radio program that there was, in fact, a similar sort of technology available in Australia. That is absolute rot, and he should have known that.There is another aspect to this, and that is the question of safety. Regional Australia obviously experiences considerable problems with bushfires and disasters, and all those sorts of emergencies that occur from time to time, where, because of the geography, the distances, the isolation, telephone technology is absolutely critical to personal safety. We have a situation where this government concedes that, in the event of bushfires in remote areas, you would be better off carrying two telephones, a digital and an analog, because the analog would probably give you a better chance, in an area where there is poor coverage with the digital network, of being able to communicate to ensure your own personal safety.I have had personal experience of this with fishermen in my electorate. They were persuaded by Telstra's telemarketers to buy digital; they said, `We suggest you go for digital technology. It is exactly the same as the analog technology you've already got.' Those fishermen bought it, they paid thousands of dollars; they got out to sea and they found it did not work.Mr Deputy Speaker Dondas, you would know from your own territory that the tyranny of distance and service delivery would make the destruction of the analog network in these circumstances an absolute aberration—in fact, a neglect of duty on the part of this government to provide the best possible service availability to all citizens, no matter where they live. We live in one of the world's most remote continents, and we have the problem of distance and sparseness of population.I would have thought a government would be committed to what are called its community service obligations, its universal service obligations—those things that are quietly being smothered to death by the government as it sells off the rest of Telstra. Those community and universal service obligations include the right to access the best technology available to all Australians. That does not mean that having a fetish for one particular type of technology should deprive some Australians of their right to access that technology. (Time expired)12:13:002755Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I can understand that the member for Calare (Mr Andren) may be well motivated by his desire to see that a technology exists in all parts of his electorate. But I think you have to take a broader vision of what has to happen for the future of telecommunications in Australia.We have had a history of various forms of phone technology, from the old wind-up phone, to the dial phone, to the latest handsets that can hold calls and do all sorts of things. In parallel with that, we now have digital, which is about the third technology that we have adopted with regard to mobile phones.But I think the member for Calare is not recognising that one of the things allowing mobile phones to be competitive and forcing the cost of calls down is the fact that there is competition. What he is suggesting flies in the face of the medium-term and long-term needs of Australia. We are now moving in television technology from analog to digital.QT4FILINGMr Filing—You've just given that away in a bargain basement sale.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—That is rubbish and you know it is rubbish. Whether you like the way it has been done or not, we are introducing into Australia the latest technology in television transmission. I would have thought the member for Calare, given his background, would have been one of the first to embrace this and would want to see that implemented in Australia.QT4FILINGMr Filing—It will cost a fortune.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Indeed, it will cost a fortune. It will cost about $900 million to introduce, but it will give Australia the best television technology in the world. We will be the only country that has high definition television mandated. Let me draw the analogy. We know that, with the compression of the signal and the use of the digital spectrum, we can achieve a lot more such as enhancement and forms of multi-channelling; all sorts of things will be available under that system. No-one would seriously suggest that we would hold back from that and doom the Australian public to analog television transmission forever and a day.We have a unique problem: the digital signal does not reach out as far as it might to cover those areas currently covered by analog. The member for Moore (Mr Filing) quoted a public servant who was asked if the digital signal would cover all of Australia. The answer is no. That is self-evident. We cannot put $300,000 towers across the desert in remote parts of Australia. The whole of Australia will never be covered. Already 94 per cent of Australians are under the digital signal. I would have thought that the challenge, rather than regressing to analog, would be to try to get that other six per cent covered by digital.QT4FILINGMr Filing—You don't understand it.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, I do understand it very well.Mr Andren interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Order! The honourable member for Calare and the honourable member for Moore will allow the honourable member for Hinkler to conclude his remarks.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Ninety-four per cent of the population already has access to digital. I would have thought that the challenge was to make sure that more people had the benefit of that technology. Using again the analogy of television transmission, if we were to let analog and digital TV exist side by side indefinitely, we would be dooming Australia or the operators to $30 billion to $50 billion of dual transmission costs.I would have thought it was sensible to phase out the analog in an orderly way, taking into account what the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) said, that is, protecting those areas that will not get a comparable service in the meantime, then from there moving to a more focused view on digital so that we can take on board new technologies like CDMA—I agree with that—and low-orbiting satellites. To regress to analog is like going back to the old wind-up phones; it makes no sense.12:18:002756Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—As I was saying earlier in the debate, the government recognises that there are gaps in the service in respect of digital and that in time the six per cent that the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) referred to will be addressed. It is a question of how quickly and the need to ensure coverage in the interim period.It is for those reasons that my colleague in another place has asked the ACA to conduct an inquiry to determine just what the current regional service is about—and regional services in particular where they receive the AMPS service—and to determine whether the phase-out would leave the area without alternative mobile phone coverage offering a quality of service and a breadth of coverage reasonably equivalent to that offered by AMPS.AMPS will be retained after 1 January in those regional areas where the review finds that there would be no reasonably equivalent coverage following the AMPS phase-out and where Telstra, Optus and Vodafone agree to the continued operation of the AMPS service.The government will, if necessary, after consultation with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, impose additional network roll-out obligations on each of them so that in regional areas, where the review finds that there would be no reasonably equivalent coverage following the AMPS phase-out and where the three firms, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, do not agree to continue operation of the AMPS service, those three firms will be required by government to provide reasonably equivalent coverage through other means such as GSM.The government will further consider mandating roaming between parts of the GSM network which are installed under the roll-out obligations if it is technically feasible and commercially appropriate, as this may be a practical way of reducing the cost to Telstra, Optus and Vodafone of a given expansion of the GSM range. Further, the government will require improved reporting on the quality of service and coverage from the carriers and we will develop and implement a binding AMPS phase-out plan designed to enable AMPS customers to have a smooth transition to alternative services.There is a recognition. The contract was signed in 1992. I should mention to the honourable member for Moore (Mr Filing) that it was not a disallowable instrument as referred to in his opening remarks on this question. It was not a disallowable instrument; it was tabled. In that regard the contract has been there since 1992. Contractual arrangements of that nature cannot be changed without drawing attention to all areas of commerce and investment in this country and putting them at risk and in doubt. It would make us the laughing stock of the world, let alone cause irreparable damage to our economy.The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) raised the matter of the capacity for coverage, particularly in the Sydney area, with reference specifically to the demand that will be there around the year 2000 with so many other visitors and so much activity in a city like Sydney. I cannot give the answer to that. I will take it on board and ask the relevant minister in another place to deal with that aspect and inform the honourable member in due course.There is a problem; it is acknowledged. There is a solution; it is practical. It is the only solution that is workable. The amendments that are being brought forward by the honourable member for Moore, supported by others on the cross-benches, are simply not practical or workable. I understand their concern, but the greater concern must be surely that to bring forward amendments of this nature would throw the whole process into total confusion and put at risk the commerciality of contractual arrangements in an area which is important to regional Australia and to all Australia. Also, of course, if they were successful, they would condemn regional Australia to an outmoded process, not the most modern of systems, and surely rural and regional Australia has the right to the most modern of systems. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Filing's ) be agreed to.12:27:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.M. Dondas)6Andren, P. J. *Bradford, J. W.Filing, P. A. *Hanson, P. L.Rocher, A. C. *Zammit, P. J.114Abbott, A. J. Adams, D. G. H.Albanese, A. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Brown, R. J.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Draper, P.Ellis, A. L. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Grace, E. L. Griffin, A. P.Hardgrave, G. D. Hatton, M.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Hollis, C.Jeanes, S. B. Jenkins, H. A.Johnston, R. Jones, B. O.Jull, D. F. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.Martin, S. P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Prosser, G. D.Quick, H. V. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Scott, B. C.Sercombe, R. C. G. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, S. F.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Tanner, L. J.Taylor, W. L. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, A. P. Thomson, K. J.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Question so resolved in the negative.2758Motion (by Mr Fahey)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.12:36:002758Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to oppose this third reading of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. I do so because Telstra is one of the best telecommunications providers in the world. Its connections reach 96 per cent of Australian households which all enjoy uninterrupted access to the national network. I also do it because I think that election promises are important. During the debate prior to the last election, the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said in a debate with Paul Keating, the then Prime Minister:Can I just say that we are not selling off all of Telstra, we are selling a third. There is a difference there, Paul.Ray Martin asked Mr Howard, `Why sell a third?' He replied:. . . because we believe that the right policy mix is to sell a third and to retain, as we have, two-thirds in government ownership.I agree with the Prime Minister. I would like to see the whole of Telstra remain in government ownership. Selling off this most prized asset of government is a policy that will have a bad economic impact and a bad impact on my constituents and on constituents throughout Australia.This is not sensible decision making. As Bob McMullan has already pointed out, Telstra dividends are currently growing at a rate of 15.6 per cent per year. By the year 2002-3, the dividends that the government could have made out of owning Telstra will be greater than the interest saved on public debt. It is a short-term decision, made by a government incapable of any long-term vision.Studies in 1992 in the UK reveal that, in a comparison of nine companies, public sector companies were well ahead on labour productivity gains. The government has also ignored the economic flow-on effect of publicly owned companies operating in the public interest. A privatised Telstra will only be interested in profits. It will not be interested in industry plans and subsidising and promoting the local equipment industry. A privatised Telstra will buy equipment from whichever manufacturing source is cheapest. It will have no compulsion to buy Australian and this will lead to a loss of Australian jobs.This bill would take the ownership of Telstra out of the hands of ordinary Australians. Currently we have collective ownership of two-thirds of Telstra. The fact is that Telstra is one of the few telecommunications companies in the world that does not time local calls. The Prime Minister has been very reluctant to rule out timed local calls for businesses. Telstra has also not raised the cost of pay phones and continues to provide free information services. But with this bill, that government control will be lost.Telstra has had for a long time what could be best termed a social contract of universal service. In the area of continuing technological advancement within our telecommunications industry, it is utterly vital that the government ensure that these new technologies be distributed equally to all Australians, regardless of wealth and regardless of where they live.We cannot become a nation of communications haves and have nots. The proposal to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra makes no sense with regard to the nation's economy, it makes no sense with regard to broader social goals, it makes no sense with regard to employment and it makes no sense with regard to services to our rural communities. It is a cheap election stunt by a very desperate government, and I urge the parliament to reject this measure.Motion (by Mr Fahey) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Personal Explanations275912:41:002759Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I wish to correct a misrepresentation arising from the Hansard record of last night. The Hansard records me as saying, `We've got the Ku Klux Klan over here!' My comment was in response to an interjection by the member for Mayo (Mr Downer) directed to the member for Banks (Mr Melham), who was on his feet at the time. The member for Mayo said, `Ku Klux Klan.' That interjection was not recorded in Hansard , presumably due to the level of noise in the chamber at the time. But I clearly heard it and responded accordingly to the slur on the member for Banks by pointing to the member for Mayo and saying to the Deputy Speaker, `Now we've got the "Ku Klux Klan" over here!'—`over here' meaning over there, the member for Mayo, the government side, also the member who attended a League of Rights meeting at a previous stage in his life. My intention was to draw to the Deputy Speaker's attention the cheap use of the term by the member for Mayo which was the culmination of a series of offensive interjections from the government side in the course of the debate, including use of the terms `racist', `liar', `scum' and `grub'.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is way beyond a personal explanation. He was not involved in any of that stuff.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is my personal explanation.Bills2760r465Billsr466Billsr481Billsr479Billsr475Billsr473Billsr469BillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBills2760r471Billsr477Billsr4622760Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.12:43:002760Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—The recent and continuing events in Asia show as clearly as anything possibly could show us that good financial system management and regulation is absolutely essential to any country's economic health. Not only must the legal regulatory system be properly structured, but also the implementation of that legal regime has to be free from political interference and must be conducted in a transparent and accountable manner. Banks and deposit taking institutions have to run on a proper prudential basis. People have to be able to trust them.Australia has enjoyed a very sound financial system since the end of the Great Depression. This fundamental soundness and strength has occurred under a number of different regulatory regimes over the decades. However, the consistent theme has been one of successful, effective, confidence building, confidence sustaining regulation. This does not mean that the appropriateness of specific regulatory regimes, or practices or rules do not vary over time; of course they do. But it is the key to a strong and healthy financial system to have an effective system in place that is appropriate to the times.The fundamental issue before us in considering this large package of legislation is not whether to regulate our financial system—that is a given—but rather how we can reorganise to the extent necessary the current regulatory arrangements to better deliver the objectives of a sound and efficient financial system. Commercial and technological convergence has really become the order of the day in every advanced industrialised country, with banks, life insurance companies, general insurance, superannuation funds, credit unions and banking societies all doing a lot of the same sorts of things which previously had operated in different markets but now are involved in converging market environments.In the context of that reality in the continuously evolving financial sector in Australia, the Wallis inquiry, or the financial system inquiry, was established to evaluate the results of financial deregulation that have occurred so far and to recommend a future regulatory structure for Australia's financial system. The package of 11 bills which we are dealing with now proposes to implement the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry.I will address my remarks under several different headings reflecting the complexity of this—first of all, the structure of market regulation that is proposed by Wallis and now implemented by this legislation, and in that context I would like to say something about depositor protection. I also wish to talk about the implications of the legislation for the vexed problem of bank and major financial institution mergers, and would then like to address the consumer protection issues that are thrown up by this package.So far as market regulation is concerned, the bills propose a complete reorganisation of the regulation of the entire financial sector. Key aspects are, first of all, the abolition of the existing regulatory arrangements which were quite industry specific. The Reserve Bank, the RBA, regulated banks; the Australian Securities Commission, or ASC, regulated companies; the ISC, or Insurance and Superannuation Commission, regulated insurance and superannuation entities; and we had an Australian Payments System Council regulating several aspects of the payments and banking systems related thereto.Then we have got by this legislation the creation of two new regulatory bodies to take over these myriad functions: ASIC, or Australian Securities and Investments Commission; and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA. I had occasion the other day to welcome the appointment of the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Graeme Thompson, as the Chief Executive Officer of APRA. I say now it seems to us an excellent appointment reflecting the reality of the continuing connection between the new regulator and the former Reserve Bank and the necessity indeed for that connection to be very visibly maintained. The remaining element of the structural equation is the creation of a new statutory body, the Payments System Board, within the RBA but with statutory responsibilities for payment system matters.ASIC is to be based on the old ASC. It will be the pre-eminent consumer protection and market integrity regulator. In addition to the corporate regulatory functions that it has inherited, ASIC will initially take on the consumer and market integrity functions for the insurance and superannuation sectors and some aspects of banking and the payments system. Eventually this regime will extend across the whole financial sector.APRA, by contrast, will be responsible for prudential regulation—in essence, managing the financial health of all deposit-taking institutions: banks, building societies, credit unions, insurance companies and super funds. The single licensing and regulation approach that is involved here is expected to result in better and more consistent outcomes.The new model of a single prudential regulator and a single market regulator, when it is finally fully implemented, will overcome a couple of fairly obvious weaknesses with the current arrangements. One is the split between the Commonwealth and state and territory regulator rules, with the Commonwealth hitherto being pretty much confined to banks and insurance but with the state and territory rules applying to building societies and credit unions, with differing restrictions and differing cost recovery regimes impacting on the competition potential between these various institutions. The other problem was the fragmented consumer protection regime where similar products were being overseen by different regulators with often different rules applying.Against all that background of proposed change, I say very clearly at the outset that the opposition supports the general approach that has been adopted in the Wallis inquiry in its conclusions and accordingly in this legislation, which seems, so far as we have been able to tell in the time available, to implement without any particular glitches the intended acceptance by the government of those major Wallis recommendations. We do recognise the benefits that should flow from the new arrangements when they are fully implemented.There are a number of issues raised in the proposed arrangements governing staffing of the new institutions. There are some questions that arise especially about the transfer of staff to APRA. Other issues may also arise in relation to staffing in respect of transfers to ASIC. The opposition is concerned to ensure that employees get a fair deal in the context of these institutional reforms, and this is one of the issues that we would like to see closely examined by the Senate committee to which we are proposing to refer this legislation in the normal course.One of the key issues in the design of any prudential regulatory regime is obviously the question of depositor protection. Given its central importance for the savings of ordinary Australians, we have been concerned to look closely at what is proposed here to ensure that there is no drifting away from the kind of commitments that depositors need to their interests by the appropriate regulatory regime.There has for a long time been a general assumption by a great many people in the community that bank deposits are specifically guaranteed to the last dollar by the Reserve Bank. That is and always has been an incorrect assumption. At best there is an implicit guarantee arising from the operation of sections contained in division 2 of part II of the Banking Act and section 86 of the Reserve Bank Act. But that implicit guarantee has never been legislatively explicit and certainly there has never been anything in the legislation that provides an absolute guarantee. What there has been is provisions enabling the ready intervention by the Reserve Bank in the affairs of banks that have been in difficulty in this respect with arrangements to ensure that they trade out of those difficulties, to the extent possible, and that in the event of a winding up the depositors do get preference over all other creditors.That has worked in the past to the extent that the system really has not been put under test in terms of having final payouts to be made. Nonetheless, it was part of the Wallis inquiry's concern to ensure that, particularly in the context of a broader set of regulatory arrangements encompassing other deposit-taking institutions as well as the banks, the limitations on the existing depositor protection arrangements be well understood in the community.They recommended that the system be overhauled, in effect, to do several things: firstly, to maintain unequivocally—and this is done in the legislation—the existing preference for bank depositors and to extend that to all other approved deposit-taking institutions. Secondly—and they seem to have done this in a way that does not cause us any particular difficulty, although this may be an issue that would deserve further attention in the Senate committee—they have sought to remove some of the language that does perhaps create a misleading impression that there is an absolute guarantee of a payout in the event of a bank or institutional collapse.What the legislation also does in its application is, in effect, improve the capacity of the regulator to intervene quickly in cases of failure or potential failure of a deposit-taking institution, recognising that this, in practice, in the real world, is the most effective method of protecting depositors. As always, it is much better to get in first, before the horse has bolted, to ensure that you have got that close supervision and the capacity to steer an institution through a rocky period. That has always been part of the regime for the banks; it is now here for all of them in a way which is, on the face of it, quite well thought through.The question always arises in this context about the desirability or otherwise of a system of deposit insurance and/or more formal guarantees for the protection of deposits. However, I think it is really a pretty compelling argument that the moral hazard and other kinds of risk associated with these sorts of arrangements are simply too large to ignore and that, on balance, it is preferable to go the other way. I think the disastrous case of the US savings and loans industry demonstrates pretty effectively just how such a system can in fact work against the very objectives that it attempts to meet.So we generally accept the model that is proposed as the appropriate one to be implemented here. Of course here, as elsewhere, the key to the success of this type of arrangement is the proper resourcing of the regulator and ensuring that it is capable of competently discharging the functions vested in it. We will be continuing to watch very closely what happens when it comes to actual implementation in this respect.The next issue that squarely arises under this legislation is the whole question of the policy applicable to bank mergers and other major financial institution mergers. The Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Bill 1998 , one of the package which is before us, proposes to standardise the rules applicable to significant shareholders in prudentially regulated financial institutions. The bill will subject all such institutions to a 15 per cent shareholding limit by any one person and that person's associates, or such higher percentage as the Treasurer may determine as being in the national interest. So you do have this residual executive discretion to determine what kind of concentrations will be permissible.The operation of the current law is being standardised and streamlined across institutions, which will certainly assist major financial services groups in terms of their own administration. The law has been strengthened too, in some respects, so the Treasurer can declare a person to have practical control of an institution regardless of the actual shareholding and, indeed, require the person to relinquish that shareholding. All of these provisions in the legislative structure before us are considered by us to be, on the face of it, reasonable, and they are not opposed.However, that is the legislation. What matters of course is the way all this works in executive practice, and I make clear that support for this new legislative regime should not signal Labor's support for any change to our basic approach to mergers of the major institutions.We have always adopted a policy which would preclude the merger of any of the four banks: ANZ, NAB, Westpac and the Commonwealth. Moreover, we have taken in the past a strong view also that the two major life offices—AMP and National Mutual—should be regarded as of equivalent stature. So it is not just a four pillars policy but really a six pillars policy that we have had. We have taken the view, and continue to take the view, that such mergers are, on the face of it, not in the national interest and we are concerned about the implication of them occurring.Certainly, so far as the major banks are concerned, Australia already has one of the most concentrated banking systems in the world. Further mergers, in our judgment, between the major banks would lead to even greater concentration without overwhelmingly obvious compensating advantages. A recent study by Professor Kevin Davis shows that only the Netherlands, Ukraine and Finland have more concentrated banking sectors than Australia does.The decision of the government, announced at the time of its response to Wallis, to scrap the six pillars policy does create the prospect of a gargantuan new institution that would not only itself have a lot of market clout but also in fact put a great deal of pressure on further acquisitions and mergers between the other players. The six pillars policy, as it was known, which has now been abandoned by the government, probably needs to be a little bit rethought to the extent that you are no longer talking simply about six pillars, but perhaps nine or even more than that at the moment as a result of other mergers, acquisitions and regroupings that have in fact been occurring.You do have a situation now, with the Citigroup tie-up with the Travellers group in the United States, which has got flow-through implications for Australia, of other major players emerging in the Australian financial sector in addition to the ones I have mentioned—the Colonial State Bank, which is the product of course of the merger between Colonial Mutual and the old State Bank of New South Wales, Suncorp-Metway in Queensland and St George, which has now absorbed the Advance Bank. All of these are pretty significant players in the scheme of things. None of the non-bank institutions have quite the same order of magnitude of market capitalisation as the more familiar four banks, but nonetheless they are very major players.I simply want to say that, so far as all of those players are concerned, without adopting an approach of absolute prohibition in terms of our own policy approach, we will certainly look with a very narrow, beady and circumspect eye at any proposal for further concentration of any of the institutions that I have mentioned because of our anxiety about the anti-competitive implications of that. Certainly, so far as the big four banks are concerned, our position is maintained as one of very real concern about the downside risks there.The Treasurer, Mr Costello, made it clear at the time of his announcement that the government had a kind of watching brief on this issue, that its position was going to be governed by its satisfaction on the question of how much competition was around, particularly in the small business sector. Recent developments, just last week with Westpac and now the Commonwealth Bank breaking some of the high interest rate barriers to small business loan access, seem to have given a new lease of life to speculation about the imminence of government approval for mergers. No doubt there is not going to be anything very exciting happening before the election, because this government is all too conscious of the very strong feeling in the community about the job loss and service loss that seem inevitably, irrevocably and endemically associated with merger activity of this kind, but I want to make it clear that the opposition is not persuaded by any of these developments that any fundamental conditions have changed, and our view would be one of resistance to any of the big four operating in this way.One of the big problems in all of this is the way in which mergers in the past—quite apart from what the banks have been doing anyway individually to reduce their cost pressures—have had a devastating effect on the availab ility of employment and services, particularly in rural and regional Australia. In the past three years, the majors have closed more than 100 rural branches, and there are more than 600 communities across Australia that no longer have access to a financial institution. It really is the last straw when the last bank leaves town. I have seen it in communities, particularly in my home state of Victoria, where the Premier has closed country hospitals—12 of them gone since 1992—and shut down their local schools, 350 of them, and when the bank goes it really is the final blow to confidence. The banking committee in this parliament has been told that, when the bank branch closes, supermarket sales tend to drop 20 per cent and local firms battle to manage to keep enough cash to attract investment and they lose customers to the nearest banking town. Baring McIntosh has estimated that the merger of two major banks in Australia would wipe out 35,000 jobs. In our judgment, it is just in nobody's interest to allow further concentration and a further shrinking of banking services and banking jobs. The Treasurer should rule out that option, do so without weasel words and make a commitment which extends into the life of the next parliament.Of course, if you are going to talk in terms of banking and what has been going on particularly in rural Australia, it is important to understand that, irrespective of merger activity, there has been a deterioration in the availability of major bank services to the bush. We sought to anticipate this problem when we were in government by, among other things, initiating a program of credit care which has fostered the development of new credit union services in country areas. Thirty-nine new credit unions have been set up in isolated areas as a result of that program. This program has been maintained by the present government—so far anyway—and I hope it will continue.I do want to take this opportunity to add a reference to one further source of hope for rural communities in Australia that I have seen as a result of an initiative of a regional bank—the Bendigo Bank in rural Victoria. They are on a path towards establishing lower scale banking services in small towns that the majors have actually given up on. They are trying to develop a system of joint ventures with the local community. They are offering their banking licence, their infrastructure, their expertise, their cheque clearing, their training capacity and their name to small communities that want a banking service again. The idea is that the community in turn pays for the bricks and mortar—maybe the building which a major has just vacated or part of a newsagency, at the other end of the spectrum, or a council office or something of that kind—by raising shares among the local people. The shareholders thereby have a vested interest in the success of the venture; they share the profits.The Bendigo Bank—to whom I have talked about this in recent times—believes there will be a tremendous incentive to bank locally if you can get that degree of local shareholder commitment to these new exercises and that it will halt the flight of capital and business to the bigger banking towns. Just a couple of weeks ago, two Victorian towns, Rupanyup and Minyip, signed up for the first pilot branches to be open 2½ days a week. A great majority of business owners who have been surveyed said that they are looking forward to transferring their business to those branches. Nhill, another Victorian town, looks like going down the same path. Bendigo Bank is negotiating with 30 other rural communities, and I hope this at least is one response to the crisis of rural banking that will actually make a difference.Before I move on finally to consumer protection, one other structural point I want to mention about banks is the foreign ownership of the major banks. I just want to say clearly for the record that, while the Wallis report says there should be no special restrictions on foreign ownership of the major banks, and while that view has been broadly picked up by the Treasurer who has committed himself only to saying that it will not be open slather on foreign ownership, we believe that there should be a very firm prohibition against foreign takeovers of any of the four majors, and that remains our position.Finally, on the consumer protection side of things—about which there is really quite a lot to say in the short time available—our concern, first of all, is that the proposed new regulatory institutional structure may give insufficient weight and effectiveness under the new ASIC badge to the kind of performance that we have come to expect from the ACCC in the past. In the absence of any details having been given by the government as to funding and staffing arrangements for ASIC and how many of the actual personnel are going to be taken over and how much of its capacity for effective action is going to be taken over as distinct from just the name, it is difficult to be confident about what will occur. The ACCC can boast an excellent track record in this area. They have taken on the banks when they have engaged in false and misleading advertising against the new mortgage originators. They have investigated collusion by the banks in lowering housing interest rates. They have played a major education role: for example, issuing a widespread publicity campaign on credit cards and their hidden traps. They have always acted quickly and with a degree of imagination. In particular, I think of that case where Bankwest was accused of running a disinformation campaign against the new non-bank lenders and their home loans. The ACCC jumped in quickly and, instead of seeking to have a fine imposed on the bank, required Bankwest to publish an honest document guiding consumers through the home loan maze.While the ACCC will retain its powers under the Trade Practices Act and the prices surveillance legislation, nobody has any idea about how this is all going to work in practice. It will be up to the new organisations to work out some memorandum of understanding and up to the executive government to supervise all of this in a way that will be effective.When it comes to everyday consumer issues like bank fees and charges, we are very concerned, particularly given the general attitude of this government, that consumers are going to be held out to dry. The Treasurer has been advocating for some time to simply let things rip in this respect, relying on `red-hot competition' to bring fees and charges down. The Wallis report gave him ample succour and nourishment in this respect, recommending that the banks be free to set their fees and charges to cover their costs with no government powers of suasion or discipline over them. Consumer power was supposed to do the job. But consumer power by itself, we found, did not work during our period in government and certainly is not working now. Even before Wallis, as housing interest rates fell and the income flow from that fell away and margins started contracting, the banks started in a big way raiding fees and charges.By January 1997, as David Luff reported in a very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph of 15 January, banks were earning `billions of dollars through a raft of new fees and charges'—more than 200 of them, from account keeping fees to charges for overuse of ATMs, to new high cheque clearing fees, to hikes in charges for duplicate statements and EFTPOS on over-the-counter transactions, and so the list went on. One in every $3 earned by the banks, Luff reported, was now earned in fees and charges. Wallis simply allowed the banks to continue the raid. By November 1997, fees and charges had jumped 10 per cent in a year and the banks had grabbed an extra $617 million in fees and charges. In February of this year, the Financial Review reported that the banks had made $6.3 billion in fees and charges in the past 12 months.Under the so-called `red-hot competition' that we are seeing at the moment, consumer power is not stopping fees spiralling upwards again. The Commonwealth Bank announced another new round of price hikes last November, with many of them hitting now. The Pensioners and Superannuants Association say that some of their members are paying an extra $13 a month in fees and charges. But the Commonwealth is actually at the most generous end. The NAB is increasing its fees from 1 May on everything from other-bank ATM withdrawals to overdrawn cheque accounts. Westpac is increasing audit fees to business customers by 50 per cent. ANZ is cutting the number of free over-the-counter transactions for the disadvantaged from four a month to two a month—a real cheese-paring exercise there. No wonder that a recent survey by the ACA—the consumers association—found that 80 per cent of bank customers believe that the federal government should regulate bank fees.What is the Treasurer doing about this? He talks constantly about merely `jawboning' the banks into doing the right thing. That is as far as he will go. There is no talk from the present Treasurer or government about using the powers available to him under the Prices Surveillance Act and directing the ACCC—or its new body now, ASIC—to formally monitor bank fees and charges. He should recognise that what we are seeing here is a classic case of market failure, and the government should do something about it. There needs to be government intervention. There needs to be an adoption of the recommendations of the PSA, which, in 1995, said that fees and charges should be monitored for three years to provide regular public reports and consumer information on fees and allow government and consumers to check the progress made by the banks in restructuring their fees and charges to promote greater efficiency.In August 1995 our former Treasurer, Ralph Willis, wrote to the banks and informed them that he would direct the PSA/ACCC to formally monitor fees and charges. In November, the new ACCC was directed to begin drafting terms of reference for formal monitoring but, after the election, the present Treasurer decided to ignore this recommendation, and all bank customers have—as I think I have now demonstrated—paid the price. The point that really needs to be emphasised is that it is the disadvantaged—the elderly, the geographically isolated, pensioners, students and low income earners—who have suffered most from this hands-off attitude. In 1995 we also demanded that the banks offer a cheap basic banking product to protect the disadvantaged, with at least one free over-the-counter transaction a week. The banks were given until early 1996 to introduce that new service and we indicated that, if they failed to deliver, we would look at regulation. By Christmas 1995, that had worked to the extent that all banks had introduced a basic banking product. What has happened is that this basic, no frills banking product for the disadvantaged is now quietly being whittled away bank by bank—from four free services a month to two free services and so on.Jawboning did not achieve the breakthrough. It had to be more. It had to be the threat of actual action—first of all, formal monitoring and then, beyond that, the possibility of further more direct government intervention. The truth of the matter is that, unless governments accompany the kind of legislative structures which are here set out and which we have indicated support for with an appropriate commitment to genuinely getting out there and protecting the interests of not only the institutions but also their depositors and all those who are customers and participants in this financial situation, the legislation will not do the job that it needs to do. Legislation has to be accompanied by executive commitment and executive sympathy and understanding, particularly to those in our community who are less well able to cope for themselves against the kinds of disciplines and rigours imposed by the banks, who traditionally, along with the other financial institutions, have been notoriously insensitive to such people. (Time expired)13:13:002766Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Here we have yet another one of those classic `if only there was a 14th year' kinds of contributions from the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans). If only there had been a 14th or 15th year of Labor. Heaven help us as a nation if there had been. This morning we have heard yet again a whole myriad of excuses and reasons from the dab hand of the previous failed Labor government—which had failed the whole process of deregulation of the banking sector in this country—as to why the people should overlook and, in fact, forgive the kinds of failures that have occurred as a result of a number of the aspects the Labor Party failed to actually do anything about during their 13 years in government. They talk deregulation, but what did they really do? All deregulation produced was a great loss of jobs in the banking sector and a decline in the real competition that the kinds of reforms that are contained in the bill before us today are all about fixing.This morning we heard yet another example of the policy free zone that we have sitting opposite. It is to the great shame of the Australian Labor Party that they constantly fail to come into this place and outline clearly some of the matters that they should be outlining to the people of Australia—alternative proposals setting out what they will do if at some stage down the track they are returned to the government benches. They constantly find excuses for what they failed to do and constantly try to plead the case for a 14th or 15th year, saying it would have been different if only they had still been in government. But they again fail miserably to provide leadership out of people like the member for Holt and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) to come up with some real policies and some matters that people can digest.The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) has produced a document on which a cartoon in this morning's paper was based. There was a caricature of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy hiding between a tree poking a stick at this document. There is a suggestion of one person asking, `What is it?' The other one says, `I don't know, I haven't seen one for quite a while,' meaning they haven't seen a policy for quite a while. One would hope that the member for Werriwa's aspirations to at least get policy making debate going in the Labor opposition actually bears some fruit.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Don't hold your breath.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—We will not hold our breath, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business suggests. I do not believe that this is a government that for a moment would talk away from any constructive suggestions made by those opposite. We are, after all, a government that listens to Australians and understands a wide range of concerns. You have only to look at the membership of the backbench of the government parties, along with those on the frontbench, to understand that we represent a broad range of people in Australia. We understand their real concerns. That is why I am so pleased today to see this package of bills before us for consideration.This package of bills has come about as a result of the reforms suggested by the inquiry established by this government, not in the 14th or 15th year of the previous government, to look into the whole financial system of Australia—the range of various financial institutions in Australia. Mr Stan Wallis and his report really do need to be highlighted for offering some very positive ideas to the government, matters which have been taken up by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the executive and obviously endorsed by members of the backbench and the government parties.This legislation is practical and straightforward. It provides long looked for reforms and it really is landmark legislation. It is all about fundamental reforms in the Australian financial sector. It has certainly proved that, unlike those opposite, we do not just convene inquiries and ignore the findings and perhaps convene another inquiry at another stage. We actually do something about it.The reforms outlined in the package of bills that we are considering today will open up the financial sector to greater competition and greater efficiency. It will all be underpinned by a stronger regulatory regime which has an eye on the ability of the banking and financial sector to respond to developments which will continue to unfold. In an area where there is high technology and ongoing globalisation, there will always be unfolding developments. We have certainly left the door open to make sure not just that Australians fall in line with developments inspired from other countries but that we are active participants in the process of those developments.These bills will set the pace for Australia's place in the world of finance. It will take Australian banks and financial institutions in general out onto the world stage. It will expose them to world's best practice and in so many cases we will prove that we will be able to establish them. All of these reforms are ones that you can bank on. That is what this package of bills is all about.This government has had so much to do in the space of a couple of years. We have so much to undo and so much to redo, refine and repair. As a result of that massive agenda packed with so many reforms, it is a valid claim substantiated by fact, performance and record in this place that we have the most reforming government in this nation's history. This is the government that has had to do so much. It is a mantle that we can now claim because the job was so vast. After 13 years of Labor, the repair job was so big that we have had to unpick things, we have had to reform things and we have had to redirect things. We have had to provide that sort of leadership. A lot of it has not necessarily been easy, but it is certainly a fact that we should have not walked away from any of the things that we have to do. Our reforms will pay real dividends in the years to come. These bills will be part of the process that is going to provide those real dividends too.The previous government really did give the concept of reform a very bad name. They tended to pervert the branding name of reform. They tended to pervert the concept of reform. They talked efficiency, for instance, but it really was simply a code word for less jobs and more tasks done by fewer people. They talked enterprise bargaining but, instead of having wages negotiated between workers and their bosses at an enterprise by enterprise level, where bosses and workers could sit down beside each other and discuss mutual interests, the profitability of the business and the viability of all things concerned, they had the union bosses usurp the workers' rights and negotiate wages on an industry by industry basis. They talked about banking sector competition. While they let a few foreign banks come in, there was no real regulatory reform and regulatory teeth to ensure that the existing cosy cartel would respond by providing better service and better prices for the particular banking products that they offer.Because of Labor, the banking sector reform job has been left to us. As a result of the Labor Party's attempts at reforms over the years, we have seen job shedding, service shedding, consumer lack of confidence, higher profits for the banks and a failure to pass on low interest rates quickly. We now have a government with a policy which quite simply has provided the lowest interest rates in almost 40 years in this country and a low level of inflation. But the benefits have been sluggish in being passed on to the consumers. In particular, I cite areas such as credit card finance. I know that people in my electorate still have massive credit card debts to repay, all because the banking sector has been slow to respond. Why? Because the Labor regime left a cosy little arrangement for them.Then we have the area of lower interest rates. In fact, I know of people—some in my electorate and some outside—who had business loans established years ago and they are still paying high business interest rates, all as a result of the Labor Party arrangements which were in place. By comparison, what do we have now under this current government and the process that the Treasurer has used to cajole the banks into some action that will bettered by the legislation before us today? We have Westpac starting to respond, with interest rates on business loans down to seven per cent.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—A record low.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is a record low. Exactly. That is tremendous news for the many small businesses in my electorate. As the parliamentary secretary knows, the Southside Chamber of Commerce, the South-West Chamber of Commerce and my Moreton Electorate Small Business Advisory Group have constantly raised matters with regard to the way banks have treated them unfairly in passing on the obviously low interest rate regime this government has been able to achieve through its reforms over the last couple of years.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—And you represented them strongly to the Treasurer.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Thank you very much, Mr Parliamentary Secretary.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The member for Moreton has the floor. He doesn't need your assistance.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Constituents, private and business alike, have all had the same complaint over the last couple of years when they have spoken to me about the banks. They have simply said that banks did not care. They felt that services were withdrawn, they felt they were charged to have direct contact services, like using a human teller, and the interest rates on credit cards and business loans remain high. Those sorts of things have happened simply because of the legacy the Australian Labor Party government of the 13 years between 1983 and 1996 left us.Essentially, to sum up, the dab hand of Labor has been left resting on the banking sector until now. The package of bills we have here today are a result of the fact that the government of today—the Howard government—wanted changes, wanted results and wanted to get a proper assessment, which was what the Wallis inquiry was all about, and now we introduce the package of bills to make so much possible. So many things will and can change as a result. Real competition, underpinned by tough legislation, will achieve results, and the dividends are very obvious. Essentially, the four big banks in Australia will have to respond to this. I must give credit to the Bank of Queensland in my own state and Metway and those other smaller banks who have been very determined in the way they have tried to provide human service and an alternative to the four big banks to try to shame them, in the Queensland market anyway, into some better response.Changes have been slow. When we start to see greater competition, world's best practice and an exposure to the globalisation and technology that is all part of the financial sector become the rule of the day, we will see the four big banks start to fall into line. This will certainly not be the way it has been as a result of Labor's years, where services we always used to take for granted were removed and where we saw people being charged for the privilege of banking their money.On top of this, in a more broader context, this government is committed to making Australia a leading business centre in the Asia-Pacific region. These reforms will also help this happen. These will bring improvements to our financial system, along with a wide range of reforms to our corporate laws, which will provide some basis of support for this.The Wallis inquiry into our financial system found there was rapid change as a result of technological innovation, increasing globalisation and changing business and consumer needs. They are all matters which will certainly shape the future as far as the finance sector and, indeed, the entire economy, is concerned.While we are challenged to keep pace with this ongoing, rapid nature of financial system innovation, we cannot leave our regulatory regimes anchored completely in the past. They must be modernised. This is a sector which will contribute strongly to job growth and growth of our nation's economy. We must not talk just about more jobs but also, as a result of these bills, talk about better jobs for Australians. This can be achieved only by encouraging our financial institutions to achieve world's best practice and to get from the late part of this century into the next century.We can prove our prowess. The government is providing a lead by these bills before us today to challenge our financial sectors to expose themselves to the international financial services market and the high level of competition it provides. The government firmly believes that this can be achieved while ensuring that some basic goals of systemic safety and stability are made paramount.There are a number of other important underlying objectives, given that the regulatory focus needs to be clear and given the need to minimise market entry restriction and failure. Competition must be enhanced but not at the expense of stability and safety. This government is providing a regime which will afford Australians the certainty they need before they boldly go beyond the traditional big four bank arrangements they are now quite used to. I am sure that in a lot of ways without such reassurances the competition that we all want could fail, as it did under the Labor government.Three key objectives for government intervention through regulation of the financial system are worth noting here. The first is the maintenance of financial stability. There are various ways of ensuring a safe and reliable payments system. Of course this marries directly with the price stability that is the main objective of monetary policy. The second goal is the provision of specialised regulation of conduct, disclosure and dispute resolution for financial service providers and financial markets.In addition, we also recognise that some sectors of the financial system which require more intense regulation for safety and stability reasons should also be beefed up to ensure that this particular aspect of prudential supervision is also locked in place. In order to do this, we are looking at the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, a new single prudential regulatory authority charged with the provision of a more efficient and competitively neutral regulation across all the prudentially regulated sectors. This is a matter of updating the Labor legacy of several agencies, providing a form of regulation.APRA, not to be confused with the Australian Performing Rights Association, which has the same acronym, will be keeping an eye on matters. It will be the prudential regulator of banks and other institutions which take deposits, including life and general insurance companies, retirement income accounts and superannuation funds. They will have comprehensive powers as an organisation and they will be responsible for licensing regulation of the institutions authorised to provide these various services.The bill sets out a number of ways and means in which the powers and functions of APRA will be established. It will provide for the laws and regulations to be administered by APRA in relation to each sector. It will be an independent regulator. Like the Reserve Bank, it will always be subject to the Treasurer's overriding policy determination power.There is also provision within these bills for the funding of APRA from moneys appropriated from a collection of levies paid by regulated financial institutions and also from charges for certain services. APRA will become fully operational on 1 July this year or as soon as possible thereafter. So here we have a one-stop shop, a single prudential regulator. It will provide flexible, efficient and coordinated regulation which is consistent across the financial sector. It is important that everybody understands there is one set of rules.It aims for excellence as far as regulation is concerned as well as enriching career opportunities for the staff and developing comprehensive and closer links with the financial system as a whole. This is a very worthwhile step forward as far as the government is concerned. It certainly has done its part. It is providing the lead that we need in this financial sector. Clearly, consumers also have a role to play. It is not necessary for consumers to put up with poor service because they are uncertain about making the big move from the bank that perhaps they have used for a long time, particularly for older Australians.There is no need for them to put up with poor service, being uncertain of where they might put their foot next. They do not need to put up with high bank charges. They do not need to put up with the failure to pass on interest rate cuts any more—all legacies from the failure of Labor in this particular area of policy. While people may still be reluctant to change banks because of some loyalty to banks in the past, they should realise that by staying with a poor performing bank they are rewarding the contempt that the banks have shown consumers in so many cases over the years, especially in recent years following the Labor Party's failure to address the sorts of concerns that this government is dealing with here today.We are addressing the failures of the past, of the previous government. We are exposing, as a result, the policy free zone on the other side. We are also exposing the lack of leadership that those opposite have shown on a wide range of issues. We are dealing strongly with an important policy area. We are providing a lead for today and into tomorrow. We are providing a lead which will give Australia's financial sector the opportunity to compete and be part of the world stage, to provide innovation and best practice. It is a terrific set of measures contained within the bills before us today, and I commend them to the House.13:32:002770Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Of all the nonsense I have heard spoken in this place about banking and the former government's attitude to deregulation, I would have to say that the contribution of the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) is on top of the hit parade. I would commend to the honourable member for Moreton the report, the genesis of which is the legislation we are debating today, Financial system inquiry: Final report , otherwise known as the Wallis committee report. Unlike the member for Moreton, who clearly has not read this, Stan Wallis and his colleagues in putting that together did a stocktake of the financial deregulation that occurred under previous Labor governments and gave them a big tick.Let me just refresh his memory. In 1983 who was it that floated the Australian dollar and freed up the exchange rate controls? The Australian Labor Party; P.J. Keating, Treasurer. Who was it that allowed the entry of foreign banks by issuing licences in 1984 to 16 of them, 15 of which took them up? The Australian Labor Party; P.J. Keating, Treasurer. Who was it in 1987 that deregulated the housing interest rates sector? The Australian Labor Party; P.J. Keating, Treasurer. Who was it that was behind freeing up the capital that could be raised through the acquisition by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia of the State Bank of Victoria that saved the depositors of that state from great grief? The Australian Labor Party; P.J. Keating, Treasurer. Who was it that subsequently put in prudential supervision arrangements and saw the Council of Financial Regulators established? Who was it that freed up foreign bank entry into this country? The Australian Labor Party; P.J. Keating, Treasurer; P.J. Keating, Prime Minister of this country. That is where it came from, my friend. All that this government has done is to take it a step further with the legislation that is here.Let me refresh your memory a bit more and give you a bit more reading to take on after you get out of this place today. Go and have a look at this report. You talked about what it was that governments had done in the past, particularly the Labor government, in looking at reports and acting on them. Let me refer the honourable gentleman to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration of November 1991 entitled A pocketful of change: Banking and deregulation.Have a look at that report and then talk to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). He knows about it because he was a member of the committee and he now chairs its extension. He is now looking at yet another inquiry into banking services in rural and regional Australia—again an issue which was canvassed here and about which recommendations were made. He knows for a fact that 102 of the 103 recommendations made in this committee's report were adopted by the government of the day. They went to things like supervision. They went to things like assisting consumers. They went to things like providing services in regional and remote Australia. They went to such things that you claimed in your contribution today that we were somehow rooted in the past.I had a bit of a laugh when you talked about things like service and all the rest of it and then went on to talk about world's best practice in banking. What do you think is going on with electronic commerce today? What do you think is going on with the holes in the wall that appear all over Australia at the present moment? What do you think is going on when you can pick up a telephone and do all your banking from your own place of business? Do you think that is not moving into the next century? Do you think that has all just happened in the last two years since you have been in government? I think not. It has been the process of the banks themselves over a long period of time working in harmony and in tandem with governments and oppositions of the day in developing those products. If you want a history lesson on this, go and talk to the member for Wannon because he knows all about it, and he knows what I am saying is correct.The legislation that we are dealing with today goes to extending one of the major issues which was canvassed by the Wallis committee report. I found the Wallis committee report an extremely good piece of research and an extremely good summation of what has been going on in the Australian finance sector over the last several years. Having taken an interest in matters dealing with banking for quite some time—I actually chaired the committee inquiry that I referred to—I was particularly interested to see some of the recommendations that might flow from Wallis. In the typical style of this government, whilst they appointed a committee to examine specific issues, they did not go all the way in the ultimate response. I know that the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), has made some comments on the six pillars policy, and I will make some comments on that in a moment.The provision that this legislation is seeking to put in place—that is, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—is in my view a step in the right direction. Without breaking the confidence of committee deliberations, my friend for Wannon will remember that when we examined the question of prudential supervision back in 1991 there was a body of view within the committee that having one megaregulator was the way to go. I have to say that was my view at the time. I felt we needed to have a megaregulator because banking services were being blurred at the edges. We know that there was superannuation. We know that there were banking services directly. We know that there were fringe dwellers in the marketplace. In my view, it seemed quite ridiculous to make Chinese walls to isolate elements of the prudential supervisory arrangement that was necessary to protect depositors against failures and potential failures in the banking system. As a consequence, in the course of our committee deliberations, I tried to argue that perhaps the best way to achieve that was to have this megaregulator.Regrettably, my powers of persuasion in 1991 are not as good as they are today. It was the left-wing members of the Liberal Party and people like Steele Hall that would not come to the party at the time. In order to get a fairly unanimous report on this issue, we settled for making a recommendation about having a council of financial regulators that brought together the individual regulatory bodies within the finance system so that they would meet on a regular basis and so that there was a cross-fertilisation in terms of prudential supervisory matters.I am delighted, therefore, that some seven years later and after another inquiry—this time by Stan Wallis—the government has chosen to put in place this legislation, which recognises the changing nature of the Australian financial industry. It recognises that, by having a single regulator, as is said here, at arms-length from government but not from government policy, as it should be, in the say way as the Reserve Bank operates, it will provide that stability and that level of supervision that consumers expect. If they are putting their money in banks, building societies, credit unions, superannuation funds, mutual societies or whatever, individuals expect and demand that there be protection for that deposit. They expect that they will get a reasonable rate of interest and rate of return on that investment, but they also expect that there will be supervision of that and that that supervision will entail the fact that, if they wish to withdraw the money, it will be there and it will be there with interest. So the main element of these cognate bills is certainly welcome.A number of issues that have been raised in public debate in recent times about banks do need some further amplification and clarification. For example, I mentioned a little earlier that the member for Wannon now chairs one of the more important committees of this parliament dealing with an inquiry at the present moment on the provision of banking services in rural and remote Australia. One of the key issues that we are examining in that committee is whether or not the process of rationalisation—for want of a better term—of the existence of bank branches from small communities is appropriate and whether there are alternate ways in which banking services can be provided.On the public record that we have examined so far and from the evidence of witnesses that have appeared, there seem to be some alternatives that can be provided. Certainly smaller financial institutions, particularly building societies and credit unions, are not averse to moving in and operating in small regional and remote communities if a bank decides, for whatever reason, that it is no longer appropriate for it to operate there. When you marry together the changes in technology with that sort of circumstance and some innovative ideas—such as the banks themselves providing mobile banking facilities and travelling through regional areas and so on—you can see that the doom and gloom that some people suggest is going to befall Australia in providing access by all Australians to banking services is a touch overstated.It is also important to note some of the other issues that have been around for a period of time as to the future shape of Australia's finance industry. The Wallis committee made a number of recommendations. It made several in respect of the so-called six pillars policy. The six pillars policy says that there should be four major Australian banks and two life offices operating—one of which has already converted to a bank and is now offering bank services and, therefore, must be adding to competition in the marketplace. We also have below that a fairly substantial level of regional banks. We have a substantial number of credit unions and building societies in Australia. Whilst we have seen some rationalisations with mergers already taking place, it is still fair to say that for a population of 18 million people in this country, although the country is large and the population is scattered, Australia is fundamentally still overbanked. Australia is still fundamentally overbanked with the number of banks that we have.Too often we see people trying to equate numbers of institutions with competition, and that is not the case. If there were three major banks and regional banks, building societies and credit unions, you may still get the same level of competition if they were prepared to go out into the marketplace and compete against each other. But, for some reason, everybody seems to be rooted in the concept of having a specific number.Let us put aside for a minute the six pillars policy and talk about it in a generic sense. I do not think that necessarily needs to be the case. If consumers are looking for business loans, we have seen in the last couple of weeks announcements by Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank that they now have special small business loan packages in place. That has come because the demand has been there, and at long last they have seen an element of their book that is perhaps undersubscribed at the minute and they see a competitive advantage for themselves in getting into the marketplace. So they have gone hell for leather and they are now offering lower priced interest rates to try to attract small business into that area. We have seen the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) take credit for that in the last couple of days and now trying to cajole the other two major banks to provide similar services.I am sure they will. I am sure they will get to that position because they do not want to see one of their other competitors get a competitive advantage in this. That is the true test of competition. It is not because there are four, six, eight, 10 or 15 players that we classify as banks. It is not because we also have 30-odd foreign banks that are now in the system. The original reason for the foreign banks being granted licences when they came in here—I think everybody would agree—was to provide additional competition to the four majors in Australia.That did not come in the form of retail banking because what the foreign banks decided to do was look at niche markets. They got into that niche market area very nicely. They were in small business—large business loans particularly—they were in equity financing for business ventures and so on. They provided a real need in the community. Since the Labor government lifted that restriction on the number of foreign banks that can be here, we have seen quite a number extra come into the place, more licences have been issued and they have been operating and providing competitive banking services—albeit in niche markets. But they are broadening that horizon.Saying that by introducing this legislation it has been the Liberal government under John Howard and Peter Costello that has led some revolution in the Australian finance industry and the banking industry generally and that it is only in the last two years that we have seen improvements in competition and deregulation take place is disingenuous at best. As I have said for a long time, financial deregulation was one of the hallmarks of the Keating legacy to this country.I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker—and you would know this too—that from time to time we on this side of the parliament are criticised for it. We are criticised because we did open up the Australian banking system to more competition. When we go to Labor Party branch meetings there are still people there that talk about the good old days and ask, `Why don't you as a party come forward and advocate buying back the Commonwealth Bank,' as if it was something special again. We sit there and have to listen to this.The Commonwealth Bank is one of those issues that keeps being raised. The Commonwealth Bank, when it was established, had a real role to play. It was a central banking function as well as just a savings bank. The central banking function—that is, the Reserve Bank function—was taken away in 1959. When the Reserve Bank was established the Commonwealth Bank became just another bank. Which was the first bank that would go in there and start kicking to death pensioners with the fees and charges on pensioner accounts? It was the Commonwealth Bank. Yet people used to say to the Labor Party, `Gee, I tell you what, you should find several billion dollars to buy it back and bring it in to public ownership.' Why? That is a bit off the subject, but it is not a bad issue. I am sort of warming up to the task.We were talking about the six pillars policy. I did want to say one or two things about that. Today's press, for example, was quite interesting. Both the Australian Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald talked about this $130 billion deal that is fuelling a bank revolution. They are talking about America's Citicorp and Travelers Group getting together in one of the world's most significant mergers and the implications that might have in Australia.I know that the member for Wannon's attention would have already been drawn to the editorial in the Australian Financial Review about that issue. It highlights some of the things I have been saying about the numbers of banks and whether policies on both sides of this place should be maintained in keeping a six pillars policy in place. I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer a little earlier on this subject. He is right. The Australian Labor Party's policy at the present moment is that the six pillars policy should be adhered to.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—You don't agree?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—You agree.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—No, you said you don't.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! If you have any remarks, you will make them through the chair.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. But he is all right. He is one of the few on that side who is all right. We have worked quite well together on finance issues over a long period.The question is, though, whether or not that as a policy into the future will not require reconsideration. When you see what is happening around the world with mergers, within Australia, for example, National Australia Bank has been one of the great advocates for allowing Australian banks to merge to make it stronger to take on the rest of the world. Successive governments have refused that opportunity. Indeed, the present Treasurer has said that that is not part of what the present government would allow. He has even qualified whether or not a foreign bank could buy into one of the majors in this country as well.However, Don Argus from the National Australia Bank, a great advocate for allowing such acquisitions to take place, clearly sees some benefit. Being frustrated, as NAB is, they have decided to challenge the world anyway. They have recently acquired a second major US mortgage organisation and are expanding into the rest of the world on their own. It was interesting to read some of the recent financial press that suggested now that Argus and NAB are going down that particular road they do not need to look at some second-string bank like Westpac, which they once had their eye on. I do not think Westpac would be too happy to be described in those terms, but I think you get the general drift of what I am trying to say.Policy in financial services and policy in banking changes as time moves on. The world is a global village. With the revolution and technology that has occurred, it allows financial transactions to move right around Australia and the world in a split second. To think, then, that the sorts of systems that we have in Australia and had back in the 1930s and 1940s are going to be applicable as we go in to the next millennium is just nonsense.Governments have the responsibility of keeping under review the way in which the financial system is structured in this country. The present government carried out a review that I have referred to already. The legislation we are debating is a product of that review. I think it is timely. I think it is worthy of support. I think it is worthy of rapid passage through this place. But I say again: this should not be the end of it. Any government must keep the financial system under review always with the idea that it should be sound, that it should be well managed and that consumers are getting benefits from it. If those criteria are not met, then it needs to be changed. (Time expired)13:52:002775Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I must admit that I was very interested in listening to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), who is, as he has pointed out on several occasions, a member of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, which I now chair. It is a committee which, under his chairmanship, did do a lot of very valuable work. However, I did think he was a little less than generous in some of his compliments to the government for the work they have done in initiating the Wallis inquiry and then taking up the recommendations and moving forward. These are very significant changes coming about because of this legislation that we are debating here today. It has come about because of an initiative of the current government. So I think he could have been a little more charitable in giving credit where credit is due for what has been put forward.I also felt, listening to him speak, in comparison to the previous speaker from the opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), that it is fairly clear who understands banking and who does not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), in his casting around in desperation to revitalise that front bench, because he seems to have such difficulty with the Jurassic Park element these days, clearly ought to promote the member for Cunningham. I think he certainly could do the job of shadow Treasurer.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Hear, hear!8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I am glad to see that he actually agrees with me too. I also found it rather interesting—and maybe it is slightly confusing—when he started talking about the six pillars policy that the Labor party is adhering to because, certainly in the earlier part of his speech, it was quite clear that he does not agree with it. I thought that was quite contradictory to what the shadow Treasurer was saying. He did try to qualify it later, but you could see that his heart was not in the latter part of his speech when he said that. That shows that there is some dissension in the ranks. No doubt the member for Cunningham really is looking to be lumped with the group over here—the young and restless. I think you can just still make it, Steve. You could join the young and restless and really start to push the oldies off the other end of the bench.We must also recognise that when it comes to introducing these changes to the way the financial system is to be regulated it is being done in a way where the government can show it is actually yielding results now. If we were to make a simple contrast with what happened when the previous government started some of the moves to deregulate, what did we see happening in Australia? What was one of the results of this? It was that the financial system had some difficulties and interest rates went up. I emphasise that. Under the Labor government, when they started to deregulate, interest rates went up.What a contrast. This government has made the move with this inquiry. The confidence of that has been engendered in the whole financial system and has seen interest rates come down. That speaks volumes about the approach of the current government compared with the previous government. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Australians would be grateful for the way this government has approached it and for the results it is already achieving. Clearly, there will continue to be results as we move down this path of further change to financial regulation.I would also like to compliment the member for Cunningham in bringing forward the importance of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration. He clearly understands all about it. Unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer does not seem to have even heard about it. All he wanted to do was talk about one little aspect of what might be happening in regional Australia. That was only one of over 100 submissions that have come before the committee talking about ways and means of providing alternative banking systems for regional Australia, particularly for smaller centres.The reference that the committee has today is directly taken from the Wallis report—recommendation 96—that government should examine alternative means of providing low cost transaction services. That is something that we will be following up. I think the committee is doing some extremely good work and will come up with a very good report.As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) said in his second reading speech, this is landmark legislation. It is a very significant part of the reform of the Australian financial sector. It certainly does follow from an excellent report that was put together by the Wallis committee. I would like to pay tribute to the work that they put in to producing an excellent report in fairly short time—one that is certainly forward looking and one that will put Australia at the forefront of financial services not only in the region but also right throughout the world.It is designed to improve the efficiency and the competitiveness of the Australian financial system while at the same time preserving its integrity, its security and its fairness. It will mean that Australia will have a stronger regulatory regime and will be better able to respond to developments in the finance sector—including globalisation and technological change and the needs of both businesses and individuals. I will come back to that point a bit later on.I would also like to follow up on the move the government is now promoting, which I think all members of the parliament would support, that not only should Australia be one of the world leaders in best practice in financial services but also we should look towards Australia becoming one of the great financial centres of the world along with Tokyo, New York and London.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Hear, hear!8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I thank the Prime Minister for his interjection there. It is also very significant to note that, in the approach to changing the financial regulation, there were three fundamental objectives for the government. The first was the maintenance of financial stability, including a safe and reliable payment system. That is something that all of us expect. While there has been some discussion already about the question of what sort of security deposit takers really do expect, the current Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Graeme Thompson, who is to take over as the prudential regulator, has pointed out that if a bank's fund management subsidiary were to be hit by major losses—I am talking about subsidiaries of banks rather than the major banks themselves—it should be realised that the presumption must be that a bank will not necessarily provide support. That is an important point being clarified by this legislation so that that will be understood.The second goal is the provision of specialised regulation of conduct, of disclosure and dispute resolution for financial service providers and for the financial markets. As the Treasurer pointed out, this is a very significant part. The third objective is the prudential supervision of those parts of the financial system which require more intense regulation for safety and stability reasons.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice277727772777McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall your statement in this parliament last week that you would support Patricks to the hilt provided they acted within the law? Will you guarantee that no money will be paid to Patricks to bankroll their dismissals should those dismissals be found to be in breach of the legally binding awards and agreements or your Workplace Relations Act?2777Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—My government will behave within the law, as always, on any matter. Let me say that these events on the waterfront are a defining moment in Australia's industrial relations history. These events on the Australian waterfront will send a very clear message to the people of Australia that, at long last, we have a government that is prepared to stand up for the interests of Australian jobs, prepared to stand up for the interests of Australian exporters, prepared to say to those men and women in business in Australia—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The House will resume its silence. I ask members on both sides to stop their persistent interjections, which make it impossible to hear what is going on. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a specific question was asked in relation to the government's response to potentially unlawful acts. The Prime Minister answered that in the first two or three seconds and he is now way off the point.10000Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place. The Prime Minister is being entirely relevant in his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There are going to be a lot of home truths on this issue before you have heard the end of it.DT4CREANMr Crean—Not from you, you fraud!10000Mr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will withdraw that remark—fraud.DT4CREANMr Crean—The fraud is out now, Mr Speaker.10000Mr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that remark.DT4CREANMr Crean—I withdraw the remark.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What can we use, humbug or—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect has already been warned.27772777Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recent developments relating to the waterfront. Prime Minister, would you inform the House what benefits to the Australian economy will come from such developments?2777Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say in reply to the honourable member that waterfront reform will boost jobs, will boost investment and will boost exports for all Australians. The current inefficiency on the Australian waterfront has damaged Australia's reputation in the world. Australia could move 25 containers an hour like New Zealand but we are stuck at a rate of 18 versus a rate of 30 an hour in the nations of the Asia-Pacific region.We are not dealing here with the battlers of the Australian work force. We are dealing here with a group of people who, by any measure, are extremely well paid. They are a group of people who are the industrial relations elite and the circumstances in which they now find themselves are a direct result of their own irresponsible conduct because for years and years people have tried and governments have tried to deliver a more competitive and a more productive waterfront. The Labor Party, bound to the MUA, have stood in the way of that. Instead of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party saying to the members of the Maritime Union of Australia, `Why don't you behave responsibly? Why don't you get rid of your stupid, anti-productive, anti-competitive work practices,' you have actually encouraged them along a path of conduct that has not only been against the interests of the Australian community but has also been against their own interests.You are dealing here with people who earn, on average, $74,000 a year and as high as $110,000 and $120,000 a year. I am very proud to say that the actions that have been taken to fix the waterfront are a direct result of the changes to the law made by my government. I am very proud of the changes and I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on the absolutely outstanding job he has done to reform Australia's old-fashioned, out-of-date, arthritic industrial relations system.The Maritime Union of Australia is the most special of special interest groups. It is a special interest group to which the Leader of the Opposition has again pledged his total, undying support. The Leader of the Opposition and John Coombs are the inseparable twins of the trade union movement in Australia. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition asks me a question the Australian people will know that he is the dummy of John Coombs of the Maritime Union of Australia. Kim Beazley is the mouthpiece of John Coombs.Honourable members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Honourable members will remain silent—on both sides.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You talk about taxpayers' money. The former government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member, spent over $170 million of taxpayers' money out of $430 million that was spent under the WIRA arrangements. Wharfies' rorts are legend in this country. Today represents a fight back by the people of Australia. Today represents a defining moment in Australia's industrial relations history. Today is the time when the ordinary exporters, the ordinary job seekers and the ordinary investors of Australia have at long last, as a result of the action of my government, the courage of the National Farmers Federation and the courage of Patricks, been given a fair go and an opportunity for a more productive and a more competitive future.27782778McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that your Workplace Relations Act requires that no employee be sacked because he or she is a union member and that any employer proposing to sack more than 15 employees must advise the CES before doing so? Are you also aware that the stevedoring industry award requires any employer to notify their employees and their union of any definite decision that is likely to have a significant effect on employees, including termination of employment, and obliges the employer to discuss such changes before they come into effect? Can you advise the House what steps you took to satisfy yourself that these provisions had been complied with before you supported Patricks's decision to dismiss 1,400 workers not because they were excess to requirements but to replace them with another work force?2778Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me just tell the member for Canberra again what happens. Governments change laws, citizens and corporations take advantage of them. I am completely satisfied with the law that we brought in. It is a wonderful law and it is a law—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his place. When the House is silent we will hear the member for Canberra on a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On a point of order regarding relevance—RH4KERRMr Kerr—But you have changed the law.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison. The member for Canberra has the call.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—My point of order is on the question of relevance: what we are concerned about is whether this company has obeyed the law—your law—and whether you checked whether they had done so before you said that you supported them, which obviously you did not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member has made his point of order. The Prime Minister is addressing the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have changed the law. The changes we have made are beneficial to the Australian community. I have always supported the right of Australian companies to take action in accordance with the law and if you have a problem about the law then you try to change it when you are next in government.27792779McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. I refer the minister to statements from an official of the Australian Workers Union that the AWU will conduct a strike in the oil industry in support of the Maritime Union of Australia. Minister, would you inform the House what the government's response to such threats is?2779Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government's response to such threats is the law which was passed with the support of the Senate—and with the support of Cheryl Kernot, a leading member of the Labor Party. We support the Trade Practices Act and the full implementation of it. But for the Trade Practices Act a lot of these union leaders who have been making threats in the past would have actually carried out those threats. Whose policy is it to repeal the Trade Practices Act and give a free rein to industrial thuggery? It is none other than the Labor Party weakly doing as they are told by the ACTU.The AWU made their threats last week and the response from the union movement was very telling indeed. Within 24 hours of the threat of national industrial action by the AWU even the ACTU itself was counselling the AWU not to take national industrial action. Why was that? It was because we, with your opposition, passed the very strong secondary boycott and primary boycott prohibitions in the Trade Practices Act. It is true that a few building workers have walked off the site today but, quite frankly, they walk off the site most weeks.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The members of the opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—Also revealing were the first comments from the ACTU as reported on the electronic media this morning. They came from Mr Combet, the Assistant Secretary in charge of this issue for the ACTU. His first comment was that the dispute will not spread. The second comment came from Jennie George this morning, also on radio, and she assured the Australian public that consumers would not be affected by industrial action. The reason for that, again, is that we have the Trade Practices Act provisions which were passed into federal law—opposed by the Labor Party; to be repealed by the Labor Party if they are ever re-elected. Those laws are strong and effective. There is no basis for anybody to be taking further industrial action. There is no justification for further industrial action. As the Supreme Court judge said very early in this dispute, the damage that occurred at the hands of the MUA was alarming and unjustified. And so it is. Further action would be unjustified.From the government's perspective we have legal teams in place. We are determined to see significant reform on the Australian waterfront. We are determined to see this matter through.27792779Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can you confirm that last night the employees of Patrick Stevedoring in Townsville were sacked en masse with your support? As the port of Townsville, like Australia's other bulk ports, operates broadly at world's best practice levels, has virtually quadrupled its throughput since 1991 and has not had a strike for years, what justification do you have for sacking these individual workers?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will ask a question and not expand on it.2779Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I've sacked them?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members— You! You! You!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will be silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—For the benefit of the member who asked me this question, let us patiently take him through it. The law was changed to make it possible in Australia at long last, after years of frustration and years of failure by the former government, after years of weakness and stupidity from the former government and after years of wasting the taxpayers' money, for non-union labour to be used on the Australian waterfront. If there is a group of people who are responsible for the situation in which the unionists now find themselves today it is they themselves who are to blame. It is they themselves who rejected, year after year, reasonable overtures. It is they themselves who have brought this situation upon themselves.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order of relevance: the question related to Townsville workers, who operate at world's best practice and who have had a fourfold increase in productivity and no strikes. Why have they been sacked?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place. The Prime Minister is entirely within the standing orders in his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The members of the MUA have been running a systematic campaign to break Patrick, and you know it. They have been running it for weeks and months. The difference is that whereas in the past when you were in government—when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia, when Paul Keating was the Prime Minister of Australia, when Kim Beazley was a senior minister in the government of Australia—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—On a point of order: I asked a specific question about a group of workers in Townsville, not about pilots. The Prime Minister is ignoring the question. You should draw him to order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member has not raised a point of order. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not think I have mentioned pilots but, don't worry, I will. I'll mention pilots and I'll mention how your leader boasted about using foreigners to break the pilots strike.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham will remain silent!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will remind you about how your leader and his then deputy leader boasted about using the armed forces of Australia to break the pilots of Australia. We will get to that in due course.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the Prime Minister is now boasting that he is going to be irrelevant, and he is irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He was asked a specific question on Australians in Townsville who have been sacked and he is not answering it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not making a point of order. The Prime Minister is entirely in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me say again, for the benefit of all members of the House, that the members of the MUA are in the situation they are in today because of their own conduct. If they had behaved reasonably, they would not be where they are today.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—If they had not set out with your help, with your encouragement, with your exhortations—Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison has been warned. The member for Denison!ZD4Mr HOWARD—to try and break Patrick, if they had decided to abandon their restrictive work practices, if years ago they had recognised that no group in the Australian community can possibly be entitled to this sort of privileged treatment, unhindered and unharmed, for years into the future, if they had not set out to destroy Patrick, they would not be in the predicament they are in today.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I go to relevance. These are workers operating at world's best practice and with no strikes, and you have sacked them. Why?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will raise his point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is not to engage in debate across the chamber during question time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are responsible for their own predicament.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Fancy having to listen to you when— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison has already been warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They are to blame because if they had behaved sensibly and if they had recognised that no group in the community is entitled to immunity in this competitive era, if they had accepted the responsibility and if they had accepted the business circumstances of other businessmen and business women in the Australian community, they would not be where they are now. The Leader of the Opposition and others can ask as many questions as they choose.DT4CREANMr Crean—We will.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Very good! Nothing will alter the fact that the members of the MUA have created their own predicament. That has not been generated by anybody else. Their own conduct is the reason why they are in the situation that they are at present. I can only say again that I am very proud to lead a government which has changed the law to give Australia the hope, years and years afterwards, of a competitive and productive waterfront that will generate thousands of jobs and will promote the export interests of the entire Australian nation.27812781Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In the light of recent events on the waterfront, what action has the Reith government taken to ensure that the Maritime Union does not shut down the rest of the waterfront—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. I would suggest that some of the members in this place might do well to see a rebroadcast of proceedings to look at their own behaviour. It does not enhance their reputation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members will remain silent. I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to put his question.HM5Mr GEORGIOU—I ask the Treasurer: in the light of recent events on the waterfront, what action has the government taken to ensure that the Maritime Union does not shut down the rest of the waterfront where they still enjoy privileged monopoly coverage? What legislative safeguards has the government enacted to protect Australian industry from rogue unions which wish to strike in sympathy with the Maritime Union of Australia?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Treasurer. The Treasurer will resume his place. If members of the opposition are silent, I will again be able to call one of their number.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was addressed to the Treasurer. No aspect of the question comes under the responsibilities of the Treasurer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of this House do know that the Treasurer has wide responsibilities. However, I point out to the Treasurer that the responsibilities for this specifically lie with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business and I would suggest that he identify his responsibility in the question and nobody else's.2781Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Certainly, Mr Speaker, and just to inform you and also the member, as Treasurer I am responsible for the competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act, including the secondary boycott provisions, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, responsible for enforcing secondary boycott provisions. The secondary boycott provisions were first introduced into the Trade Practices Act in 1974 by the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the Hon. John Howard. That was some 25 years ago when the then Fraser government was leading in the area of competition, and it was not until the late 1980s and 1990s, during the dark years of the Hawke government, that the provisions were actually taken out of the Trade Practices Act. One of the great achievements of this government was to put back into the act the provisions preventing secondary boycotts, and I want to pay credit to the minister for industrial relations, Mr Reith, who presided over the amendments that brought back those important reforms—WI4REITHMr Reith—The Howard law.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That brought back the Howard law of all those years ago. He couldn't do it on his own, could he? He would be the first to acknowledge that he was assisted in that task by Mrs Cheryl Kernot, of the Labor Party, in bringing back those secondary boycott provisions. We would like to thank Mrs Cheryl Kernot for the services that she has provided in bringing those secondary boycott provisions back.A secondary boycott provision provides that no person can extend a dispute between the primary employer and employee into other industries. The Trade Practices Act is monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, for which the Treasurer is responsible, and it has a watching brief over the waterfront industrial situation at the moment, including any activities which could be taken to extend this dispute into other industries.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission warned the Australian Workers Union last week, in response to threats to shut down Australia's oil industry in support of the maritime union, that it would be taking action if the AWU breached the act. Fines for breaching the secondary boycott provisions of the act are $750,000, and in addition a person in breach of the act can also be responsible for damages.In 1995 the Industry Commission, in its report The growth and revenue implications of Hilmer and related reforms, estimated that benchmarking Australian ports to Australian best practice would generate an increase in GDP of about $1 billion. That report was in fact welcomed by some of the thinkers in the parliament. When the Industry Commission report came down assessing the benefits of competition policy and saying, inter alia, that it would add $1 billion to GDP in Australia, it was warmly welcomed by none other than the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa, the thinker of the Labor Party, got up in the adjournment debate on that very report and said this:I am the strongest possible advocate of the introduction of competition policies throughout the Australian economy. You can therefore imagine my pleasure this morning to read in the Australian the findings of the draft Industry Commission report on the benefits of the introduction of Hilmer reforms.So the thinker of the Labor Party endorsed the benefits of competition which will come about as a result of getting improved performance on the waterfront. The Centre for International Economics in 1995 estimated that a 10 per cent increase in productivity of the sea transport services sector would increase real GDP by about $1 billion. Wouldn't that be a great thing for the country?One of the great things about reforming the ports and wharves in this country, about increasing competition, will be adding to national wealth, adding to job creation, adding to exports, adding to the opportunity to get foreign debt under control and adding to the improvements in the Australian economy. The government congratulates those who have taken steps to achieve best practice on the waterfront. Back in 1991 the then minister for—I do not know what he was minister for—Mr Beazley was boasting about the need for waterfront reform.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Employment.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has become a habit of the government not to refer to people properly in this place, and I would ask you to act to deal with this at this stage of the game.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In that instance I think he was referring to a previous incarnation, but I draw the Treasurer's attention to the requirement that he call members by their right titles.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The current Leader of the Opposition, I think then the employment minister, said this:If we can change industrial relations on the waterfront, it ain't too hard for you to get rid of feral pigs. Back to the feral pigs, old son—the waterfront has been fixed.That is what he said in 1992. In 1992 the waterfront had not been fixed. The waterfront will be fixed as a result of this government's action, and that will be in Australia's interests.27822782Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Isn't it a fact that at the overwhelming majority of the 17 ports where Patrick Stevedoring workers were sacked last night there has been no recent industrial action? What evidence do you have to support your claim that workers in ports such as Burnie, Townsville, Darwin, Port Kembla, Newcastle, Cairns, Mackay and Bell Bay have engaged in persistent industrial thuggery? Prime Minister, who is next?2783Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member who has just asked the question knows as well as I do that the members of the MUA have embarked upon a systematic campaign to send the company Patricks into bankruptcy and insolvency. They have embarked upon a systematic campaign, and anybody with eyes to see or ears to listen or a mind to comprehend will have seen a pattern of disruptive, negative, destructive conduct over the past few months. I have to say to the rank and file of the MUA that you have been badly let down by your union leadership. The union bosses of Australia have once again sold out the interest of the rank and file members of the trade union movement. But even worse than that is that the conspiracy along that destructive path between the leadership of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party has also sold out the interests of working men and women. Once again the men and women, the ordinary trade unionists of Australia—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent, I will call the member for Melbourne on a point of order.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Thanks, Mr Speaker. Once again I asked a specific question about workers in Burnie and Darwin and Townsville and Port Kembla and Bell Bay and Mackay and various other places. The Prime Minister is not answering the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has made his point of order. He will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There has been a clear pattern of conduct by the members of the MUA, orchestrated by the leadership of the union, inspired and encouraged at a political level by a Labor Party that cannot break itself free from the shackles of its trade union past. I have to say to those opposite that we are now living in the 1990s. We are living in an era in which the men and women of this country want decent, competitive, productive conditions. We are living in an era when our exporters want the opportunity to compete effectively against the rest of the world. We are living in an era when we want thousands more jobs created by having lively, competitive, productive industries. What is now occurring, this historic change which is now occurring on the Australian waterfront, is good news for future jobs in this country, it is good news for exports and it is good news for the international economic reputation of Australia. The only people for whom it is bad news are the union bosses who failed their members and the members of the Labor Party who are chained hand and foot to the union bosses of Australia.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—An unbelievably dignified performance that was.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will stop his casual comments across the table. They are not appropriate.27832783Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. What effect will threats of industrial action against Australia by the International Transport Federation, operating out of London, have on the government's resolve to reform the waterfront in this country? What is the government's response to such industrial thuggery?2783Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government will not put up with thuggery by industrial trade union leaders making threats from London against Australia. We will not put up with the threats of industrial thuggery from union leaders outside this country attempting to dictate to the duly elected government of the day. We have a legal team in place, the legal team has been in place in London now for some time, and we are in a position to see legal action taken both in Australia and internationally to counteract any attempt by the ITF to crystallise the threats that they have been making.I do understand the concerns of shipping companies in respect of the threats by the ITF. For that reason, I have had discussions with a number of shipping companies this morning on this issue. We have offered to those companies the legal advice that we have available to us and we put them in contact with the government's legal advisers. We have also made it very clear to those companies that, in conjunction with those companies, or separately or otherwise, we are prepared to take legal action if there is any crystallisation of those threats by the ITF against companies which are carrying on their lawful business in trading with Australia. I am pleased to say that a number of those companies that I have spoken to have contracts with Patrick, and I have been told this morning by shipping companies that they intend to continue their commercial relationship with Patrick, and they should know and understand that this government is absolutely determined to take this opportunity for reform. We will stick by those shipping companies to ensure that the reform opportunity for this country is grasped.It is also worth noting that, whilst the ITF make threats about companies using both MUA and non-MUA labour in Australia, elsewhere around the world this is commonplace. People are so used to the monopoly of the MUA here that many do not appreciate that the idea of having MUA or non-MUA labour in Australia is what happens in virtually every other country around the world. That is why I think that, whilst we hear many threats coming from the ITF, ultimately it is unsustainable for them to pick out Australia and say that companies should not trade with Australia when those very same companies are going to ports in New Zealand and many other countries within the OECD where there is union or non-MUA labour. Lastly, I make this point: the shadow minister for transport asks, `What about some of the other ports; for example, Newcastle?' Newcastle is so bad that Patrick recently lost a contract.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is a matter of relevance. This was directed to an international matter but, if it is relevant to raise this, what about Tasmania where there has been an industrial exemption in place for decades where those unions have undertaken— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will not argue his case; the member for Denison will resume his seat. The minister's answer is entirely relevant to the question asked.WI4Mr REITH—Just some facts. Newcastle is so bad that Patrick recently lost a contract to load 300,000 tonnes of aluminium for a Norwegian shipowner after the shipowner repeated complaints about the conduct of Patrick's workers over a two-year period. The fact is that standards in Australian ports are abysmally low, reliability is at appallingly low levels, and it is one reason why Australia has a shocking international reputation when it comes to the efficiency of our ports. This country has been made a laughing stock by these people running the MUA, supported by the ALP, who like the idea of having a few union bosses able to hold this country to ransom whenever it suits their political ends. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition those days are over.27842784McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Have the Victoria Police Association written to you expressing concern about the actions of the Office of Employment Advocate; in particular, about advice from the Employment Advocate that they would not be entitled to any pay for limited industrial action such as refusing to issue speeding tickets or to operate speed cameras? Are you aware that this advice has created the situation in which the police association are forced to consider industrial action which may include withdrawal of all police services in Victoria? Isn't this another example of your approach to industrial relations provoking escalation of industrial action?2784Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Isn't that interesting? We had four questions from them on the waterfront and now they are off onto an unrelated matter. This is the embarrassment that the Labor Party has had through this whole dispute. So embarrassed have you been, unable to publicly get out there and—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. He was asked a specif ic question about the application of his industrial act in relation to the police association in Victoria. He is now getting up and talking about anything but.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place. The minister will address the question put to him.WI4Mr REITH—I will do so with real pleasure, because section 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act, which the shadow minister refers to in his question, is one of the very many good things in the Workplace Relations Act. What that section says is that you will not be rewarded for taking industrial action. When this issue arose a couple of weeks ago in Sydney, the Labor Party condemned the provisions of the act, but when I put out a press release noting the fact that it was the same law in New South Wales which had been supported by the Labor Party in New South Wales all of a sudden they went quiet. When it comes to the level of industrial disputes, one of the reasons we have on the Australian waterfront nine times the national average is that, under Labor, if you took industrial action, you could be rewarded for taking that action, and we have placed a ban on people being rewarded for taking industrial action. What happened in Sydney is also very revealing—it shows you the strength of these provisions—because when this matter first came to a head the wharfies said, `Oh well, we'll take'—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I asked a question with regard to the Police Association of Victoria, which has not been referred to yet. In all the time that the minister has been responding, he has not referred to that matter at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister needs to respond to the question put to him.WI4Mr REITH—Yes, I will. The proposition being put to me is that there is a threat of industrial action because of section 187AA.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Have you got the letter?WI4Mr REITH—I do not know if I have the letter or not. I have not read it.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I will give you a copy.DT4CREANMr Crean—Table it.WI4Mr REITH—Yes, you can send it around to me, thanks very much. As a postie, you might do better.The point I am making is that, when the wharfies went back to work after their first seven-day strike, did they continue with their overtime ban? No, they did not. And why didn't they? Because they wanted to be paid. They wanted to be paid—and section 187AA was very effective indeed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. This is completely absurd. He has not yet mentioned, in about a four-minute answer, one word about the Police Association. He says that he does not know about it, so he ought to sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was framed with a narrow bar, but it also had a broad context. The minister is in response and he is quite relevant in that general context.WI4Mr REITH—To conclude my answer, the point I am making—which is a difficult point for the Labor Party to understand—is that there are a lot of unions that will make threats of industrial action. But what you need to have in place is effective laws. And 187AA has shown to be a very effective discouragement for those unions wanting to take industrial action—very effective in dealing with the wharfies, and just as effective in dealing with anybody else who wants to take industrial action. Under our laws, they will not be rewarded for doing so.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I seek leave to table a letter from the Police Association to the minister, dated 2 April.Leave not granted.Distinguished Visitors278510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would like to extend, on behalf of all members, a warm welcome to a delegation from the National Council of Provinces of the Republic of South Africa, led by the Chairperson of the NCAP, Mr Patrick Lekota. Welcome to Australia.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice278627862786Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Minister, can you outline to the House the significance of waterfront reform to Australian exporters?2786Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We have a pathetic noisy opposition here today. Where were the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last night when they should have been at the dispatch box, answering for their own good? Where were you? We know where you were at lunchtime today; you were launching a book of some kind or another.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minster will return to answering the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Mr Speaker—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote this dorothy dixer; he ought to at least be able to keep on track with it. I would ask you to tell him to come to order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will answer the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—As a matter of fact, I did not write this particular dorothy dixer, but I am very happy to answer it.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We know what annoys you. What really annoys you is that several hundred thousand workers voted for the coalition at the last election, many of them trade unionists. Indeed, they will do it again—and we will give them good and proper reason to do it again. We even have a trade unionist sitting in the coalition ranks: the member for Capricornia, a shop steward and proud of it—and on the coalition side. We have a task to do here.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will answer the question put to him. Could I have a little silence in the House before I again call the Deputy Prime Minister?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Mr Speaker, I accept your guidance. I think we should look at some comparative costings with regard to the movement of containers. Let us look at the loading of timber logs, as one particular example. In Australia it costs $5.60 a tonne, with a nine-day ship turnaround. Compare that with New Zealand at $2.20 a tonne, with a four-day ship turnaround. So, if you just take that one example with regard to the timber industry, the Australian cost structure is more than twice that of New Zealand.But take the crane rates. I welcome the South African delegation in the gallery. I know that they are trying to open up the Maputo Corridor and the Mozambique outlets. I congratulate them on that because, in fact, the Port of Mozambique is performing at a better crane rate—25 containers an hour—than the average of the ports of Australia.We have a huge task ahead to get it right on the waterfront. That we seek to do that is in the interests of the workers of Australia, the standard of living of the workers of Australia and the export performance of Australia. Professor Blainey wrote many years ago that Australia suffers from a tyranny of distance. Our exporters are particularly challenged by the fact that they are deep in the Southern Hemisphere and a lot of our competitors are in the Northern Hemisphere. The very least we can provide for them is best international practice, with regard to micro-economic reform and the waterfront.So let us give our job creating exporters a fair go. Let us give our export containers efficient cost-reduced passage through our ports—and the sooner, the better, for the sake of all Australians.27862786Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Will the Treasurer confirm that the `other than incidental' clause in the government's proposed new tax treatment of franking credits—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Could the members of the frontbench of the opposition remain silent so that we can the question? Could I ask the honourable member to ask his question again? I have not been able to hear it. Could you ask the question again?ZI4Mr ROCHER—Certainly. Mr Speaker, will the Treasurer confirm that the `other than incidental' clause in the government's proposed new tax treatment of franking credits will trigger part 4A of the 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act when the stakeholders in Telstra sell their shares, following the conversion of those shares to ordinary shares? What action will the government take to ensure that those many Australians who own Telstra shares, but who may not be aware that they will be exposed to the new anti-avoidance provisions when they divest themselves of shares, are made aware of this new proposal?2787Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The measures which were announced in the 1997 budget relating to dividend streaming were designed to ensure that a party would not be entitled to take the benefit of imputation credits unless they bore some of the risk. One of the measures that was put in place to ensure that you bore some of the risk was a requirement that you hold for 45 days or, alternatively to that, part 4A was amended to apply to such transactions.Part 4A in its application to the rules in relation to dividend streaming says that it can be struck down by part 4A in the event that one of its purposes was to get the advantage and that was other than an incidental purpose. The test is an objective test which would require the courts to look at all of the conduct.Those people who were holding the shares as part of either a strategy of increasing the capital value of the share as part of hedging or who had a normative purpose—including the millions of mothers and fathers in Australia who had bought them—would not I expect be caught by that test in any sense at all, because they would only be caught if it could be shown that they had come in to take advantage of dividend streaming and were not interested in a proper investment either for other purposes such as capital increase, or for other purposes such as hedging.In those circumstances I believe that there is no real risk under the amendments to part 4A to those millions of Australians who have invested in the Telstra shares. Certainly, it is not the objective of the changes to part 4A to bring them into that net. I can give them and the member for Curtin an assurance that the application of the law will not affect the holding of what I consider to be a very good investment.27872787Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister please inform the House how the state of Australia's waterfront efficiency affects Australia's image within the region as a reliable international trading partner?2787Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Fisher for his question and recognise his concern for Australia being successful in the so-called globalised economy. Globalisation is a theme of the member for Werriwa's well-known book which was launched today by the Leader of the Opposition.There is no doubt that Australia's notorious reputation for an inefficient waterfront is internationally known and understood, and is an international embarrassment for Australia. Quite frankly, our waterfront performance is a standing joke in countries such as New Zealand and China. If anybody ever wanted any evidence for this proposition, they only have to look at the Far Eastern Economic Review editorial of 19 February 1998.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about all the editorials on Parer?4G4Mr DOWNER—It may be well worth the opposition listening to this, because this is a reference to the opposition as well as it is to Australia as a whole. The editorial states:In the past few years Australian officials have been fond of talking of Australia joining Asia.That proposition by the Far Eastern Economic Review is indeed very true. But the editorial went on to say:It is becoming more clear that this might first depend on having their dock workers become part of the 20th century. The article went on to say:Certainly the MUA appears to come from a different era.Mr Speaker, if you ever wanted to know what the world thinks of Australia's waterfront, then that illustration from the Far Eastern Economic Review is a very good one.The House would be well aware that the comparisons between Australian ports and ports around our region and the world are most unflattering. A recent international comparison showed that the port of Laem Chabang in Thailand turns around about 30 containers an hour; Hong Kong, 25 to 30; Singapore, 25 to 30; Auckland, 25; and by comparison Sydney can only manage 18 containers an hour and Melbourne 18½ containers an hour. I would have thought that any self-respecting member of this parliament would be very concerned about that, would want to see that productivity improve and not try to defend the status quo.In a recent survey of 18 international ports Sydney was ranked last, that is 18th, in reliability, 18th in turnaround speed and 17th out of 18 in terms of value for money. I am sorry to have to concede the point that my own home town's Port of Adelaide was rated 18th out of 18 in terms of worst value for money.There may be some people in the Labor Party who regard that as acceptable. They spent 13 years in government. They talked about waterfront reform, but they did not do it. Our record is still a bad record and it is embarrassing to our international reputation.I will come back to what is admittedly one of the smaller incidents of the day, the launch of the member for Werriwa's book. How nice of him to turn up just as I mentioned his book. Having finished answering questions at the press club, he now turns up to the parliament. I think it is probably what Laurie Oakes meant when he talked about you being absent without leave.The member for Werriwa talks in his book about globalisation. What he says about globalisation is absolutely right. It is all about trying to bring the Labor Party into the latter part of the 20th century. One of the points he makes in his book which is worth reflecting on is this:This is not the time or place for the preservation of sacred cows.He may be alone on that side of the House in holding that view, but at least he understands the point about globalisation, international efficiency and modernising Australia, even if the dinosaurs here have no understanding at all.27882788Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree that, unless banking, insurance and similar financial services are not merely exempt from GST, as is usual elsewhere, but also zero rated, substantial additional costs will still have to be passed onto consumers if the banks and insurance companies are to cover the costs of GST paid on their inputs? Will you commit the government to zero rating GST in its application to banking, insurance and financial services?Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Isaacs will remain silent.Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs!2788Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The member for Isaacs is one of the great intellectuals of the Labor Party. We would like to encourage more interjections from him. I have already indicated what the government's view is on these little trick questions. We will announce our tax policy at a time that suits us, and we will not be announcing it in question time on a Wednesday afternoon, thank you very much. I am rather amazed that the Australian Labor Party stands so squarely against tax reform and modernised tax—DT4CREANMr Crean—But not yours.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, no; they are in favour of tax reform, they are just against every proposal which would accomplish it. That is their position: `We're in favour of tax reform, we just oppose any changes to the current system.' What a fraudulent position that is.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I thought `fraud' was out.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I did not say `fraud',DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, so `fraudulent' is in, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. If he wishes to raise a point of order, he will do so properly. I did not hear the word `fraud'.DT4CREANMr Crean—What? You didn't.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the honourable member will remain silent, you have raised your point of order. I am currently addressing the response to the Treasurer.DT4CREANMr Crean—But, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The Treasurer, if he used the word `fraud' with respect to an individual in the opposition, I suggest will withdraw it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I did not use the word `fraud', Mr Speaker.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You said `fraudulent'.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I did not use the word `fraud'. Let me talk about a modern taxation system.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on the point of order. My point to you was his use of `fraudulent' not `fraud'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You did not—DT4CREANMr Crean—I am asking you whether `fraud' is out and `fraudulent' is in. We want the list so we know the consistency.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat if he wants to stay in this place. You may ask properly if words to which you take offence and have been used against you should be withdrawn.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—On a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am responding, if the member for Brisbane has two seconds to spare. As far as the Treasurer is concerned, he has said he did not use the word `fraud'. I gather now you say that he said you were fraudulent. Is that correct?DT4CREANMr Crean—Which is what I said in the first place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Did the Treasurer say you were fraudulent?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I said it was a fraudulent position to say you are in favour of tax reform and to oppose all measures which would change the current system.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is entirely within the standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And properly within the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer therefore can continue his remarks.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Australian Labor Party opposes broad based indirect tax. That is the one thing we know about. It opposes broad based indirect tax, and it supports the wholesale sales tax. Which countries have a wholesale sales tax?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer was asked a specific question about GST—no ambit claims in relation to it; a specific question about banking and financial services. It was narrowly cast. Now he has answered it by saying he will not answer it, and now he is going to argue a general proposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was framed in a context of tax reform.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was asked a question about broad based indirect tax, and I am going to make this point. The following countries seem to be able to manage it: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance. There is nothing in his crummy little red pamphlet that says a word about financial or banking services. That was the question; why don't you answer it? Why do you continue to hide your intentions—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. The Treasurer is entirely relevant in his answer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The following countries in the world seem to be able to manage broad based indirect tax in its application: Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Kingdom. The following countries support the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax: Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Pakistan, the Solomon Islands and Swaziland.27902790Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. Minister, are you aware of repeated approaches that have been made to your office, going back to August of 1996, from Lt Col. Harry Smith, retired, who was the officer who commanded D Company 6 RAR at the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966? Why have you not investigated Colonel Smith's allegations that his recommendations for Military Cross awards for two of his platoon commanders in that battle were destroyed and that they were given a lesser award, one that was also handed out to the postal clerk at Vung Tau? Why did you refuse to investigate these matters before closing the End of War List for the Vietnam War, and will you now give the House an undertaking that these issues will be fully investigated and that the Australian soldiers who clearly displayed gallant and distinguished service in action at the Battle of Long Tan will be properly recognised?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane should be aware, before I call the minister, that particular questions of that sort are normally asked to be put on notice.2790Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BISHOPSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—I would say that, in all the matters that are brought to my attention that require investigation, I am punctilious in carrying out that investigation. I would take your advice, Mr Speaker, and ask that the question be placed on notice. I would be pleased to come back with a fulsome answer. I note that, in all the years that they were in government—13 years—there was absolutely nothing done about the End of War List at all. We have had the good grace to fulfil our promise and announce that list. I simply will not tolerate the sort of nonsense that comes out of the opposition in trying to pretend that they are now concerned when they obviously were not for 13 years.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. She was asked a specific question about this action. They did nothing about the end of war lists for seven years in government—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order.27902790Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, could you please inform the House of the importance of waterfront reform to all the farmers of Australia, including those in the Riverina?2790Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say at the outset that it is interesting that with all those champions of the bush over there who run around saying that they are the answer to all the problems of the bush, they have not asked a question in relation to waterfront reform and its importance to the rural sector. Where are the member for Burke and the member for Hunter, let alone the cockies' friend, the member for Hotham?There are about 120,000 farmers in Australia and about 20,000 of them could provide enough food and fibre to look after all Australians' needs. The other 100,000 rely upon exports for their livelihoods and so do hundreds of thousands of people in the processing sectors, the value adding sectors that spring from agriculture. They are amongst the world's most efficient, by anybody's standards—and we are all very proud of them. But those first-world performers in those industries are outrageously held back by third-world performance on the waterfront. That is what happens. Farmers face international competition and, to win, they would like a waterfront sector that helps them win, not hinders them.We recently had a National Farmers Federation study which showed that a 25 per cent fall in the cost of shifting goods—and it needs to be remembered that we have about double the costs of our competitors—across the Australian waterfront would improve the prices of rural produce in Australia by one per cent. That, in turn, would improve farm business profit by 27 per cent.Our multibillion dollar meat exports, for example, are containerised. Millions could be saved and put back into the pockets of farmers if we could get decent waterfront reform. Our dairy industry alone provides 100,000 jobs. We know about these champions of the workers over there. With these hundreds of thousands of jobs built on exports—we have 36 per cent of Asia's dairy market—we are involved in a fight to the death with our competitors from countries like New Zealand and America where they are reforming and continuing to cut costs on their waterfronts.You have heard the Deputy Prime Minister talk about the fact that it costs vastly more to move timber across our ports than it does in America's ports. I have been asked by citrus importers in Indonesia why it is—and this is very interesting—that it takes nine days for them to import citrus from America and 16 days to import citrus from Australia. And that is in an industry we would like to see succeed on export markets. Apparently, you do not and neither do your mates in the MUA.What is the attitude of our waterfront mates in relation to this? A few modest reforms from these highly privileged elitists could improve farmers' incomes dramatically. How do they respond? I will tell you, Mr Speaker, how they respond: they claim that they are better than they used to be. They refer to history in this country. But that is utterly irrelevant for a trading nation like Australia. Historical comparisons about where they were five, six, seven or eight years ago are utterly irrelevant. What matters is how we stack up against our competitors. We are an exporting country. That is where our jobs and our prosperity lie and where our future must be secured. We are about securing those jobs, those living standards and that future; you and your mates plainly are about exporting them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—To restore the balance, as I called two Opposition members consecutively, I now call the honourable member for Corangamite. 27912791McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you advise the House whether there have been any statements by the ACTU about developments on the waterfront, and what is the government's response to these statements?2791Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. The President of the ACTU has made some remarks this morning. What I think is interesting is that we have yet to hear from the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty. Mr Kelty is basically the one who runs the ACTU. These others are just the fronts for the ACTU but the remarks by the President of the ACTU this morning portrayed their concern about breaching the Trade Practices Act—and they are right to be concerned about the penalties which people can be subject to for breaches of the Trade Practices Act. What she said is, `We will have a response, but it will be muted; it will be united; and our first priority must be the workers, their families and their children.'The redundancy program which the government announced this morning will ensure that those workers who are made redundant will receive their full entitlements, including superannuation, which can be up to $270,000. Those are very generous redundancy arrangements by any community standard. I heard John Coombs saying this morning that these were miserable payments—over a quarter of a million dollars. Only the head of the wharfies' union could make such a claim.We will ensure that these redundancy entitlements are paid. I make the point that this is an industry wide scheme and these funds will be available for any workers made redundant, whether it be in the associated labour hire companies, those labour hire companies which have had contracts with Patrick's or any employees in any other stevedoring organisations.One of the significant aspects of the developments that we have is the commitment by P&O to the benchmark performance targets set by the government. We expect those objectives to be achieved within a 12- to 18-month time frame. The figures are interesting. I understand that, roughly, the labour force available to Patrick until now has comprised around 1,400 people. But the number of people who will be working under contracts to provide the same services will be in the order of 400 or 500—a very significant reduction, which shows you the extent of overmanning in the industry. With efficient operations, this industry can be run not only more productively and more reliably but also generally at a lower cost for the users of stevedore services.27922792Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, didn't the member for Casey resign as Speaker because, despite your promise of an independent Speaker, you broke your word? Didn't the member for Lowe resign because he grew sick and tired of your broken promises, saying that your promises are not worth the paper they are written on? Hasn't the member for McPherson resigned because he disagreed with your government's stance on nursing homes, Wik and the stolen generation, amongst other issues?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Each of the propositions advanced by the Leader of the Opposition relies on an attribution of motive to a member on this side, and each of them is beyond the limit of ministerial responsibility under standing order 142. I ask you to rule the question out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is responsible for ministerial arrangements within this place. While the question implies motives, the Prime Minister is responsible for the appointment of ministers. Consequently, the question at this stage is still in order.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—How many more of your colleagues are going to jump ship? Prime Minister, how many more resignations will it take before you finally get the message that many Australians, including a growing number of your own supporters, find you a divisive, confrontational Prime Minister and have lost faith in you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition needs to be very careful.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question clearly has inferences and I ask you to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have considered the question carefully. There is within standing order 144 a number of restraints which the Leader of the Opposition went very carefully around. I am afraid that, while there were areas that I thought may have been questionable, I think the overall purport of the question is clear and within the Prime Minister's responsibility. I therefore call on the Prime Minister.2792Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I of course reject the basis of the question that has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. But, because he has raised the subject of general political attitudes in Australia, it gives me an opportunity to say a few things. The first remark I make is that they left the waterfront by 2.35 this afternoon. They walked off. The waterfront gave themselves a rostered day off at 2.35 this afternoon. I remember reading some of the columns before the parliament resumed. We had all of these columns about how they could not wait to get us back to ask us about Dubai. Were they going to ask us difficult questions about Dubai. Were they really going to put my colleague the minister for workplace relations in the dock on Dubai.Of course, the reality is that they are petrified to pursue the issue of reform on the waterfront. The reason they are petrified to pursue it is that the ordinary men and women of Australia back us on the waterfront. The ordinary men and women of Australia know that the waterfront has been rorted for years. The ordinary men and women of Australia are fed up with the abusive tactics of the trade union bosses. The ordinary men and women of Australia know that the Leader of the Opposition is bound hand and foot to John Coombs on this issue.As for the Leader of the Opposition talking about division and standards, the Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage to pursue somebody himself. He gets his muck-raker in the Senate, Robert Ray, to trawl through the sewers. He does not have the guts to discipline the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He has been prepared to allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to invoke and incite racial hatred in this community. He has been unwilling to control that motormouth, the apology for a Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who sits behind him. I think the Australian community see the Leader of the Opposition as a weak, wimpish, lap-dog of the trade union movement.27932793Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. We do not believe in the nick on this side of the House. Minister, would you please advise the House whether any taxpayers' funds will be used in reforming the waterfront?2793Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. The government will be putting in place a scheme where the cost will be borne by industry. This is an interesting contrast to the program introduced by the Labor Party in 1989-92, where a big slice of the funds last time were shelled out by the Labor Party shelling out taxpayers' funds. To add insult to injury, they never got the change in performance, the improved productivity, which was the whole purpose of the exercise in the first place. This scheme being put in place by the government will be at no cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the cost of this exercise will be absorbed by the stevedoring companies themselves.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The same minister introduced legislation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will raise his point of order.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Yes, I am raising my point of order. He raised the question of the legislation today. He is now dealing with the issues under that legislation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the honourable member for Calwell knows, technically the legislation is not yet on the Notice Paper . But you are right; it has been moved through its first reading to the second reading, and debate has commenced. Provided the minister does not refer specifically to the details within the bill, this sort of answer has traditionally been allowed within our standing orders.WI4Mr REITH—I am happy to conclude my answer, because I wanted to make this final point: today has been very revealing. During question time, have there been nine or 10 questions from the opposition on this issue? No, there has not. Why hasn't there? Because they do not have the guts to stand up for the national interest. These people have never had a policy on this issue other than to do what they have been told by the MUA leadership and the ACTU.Miscellaneous2793Miscellaneous279315:15:002793Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business moving forthwith at the completion of this suspension motion and without debate: `that this House supports the introduction of genuine competition on the waterfront and the right of all employees to join or not to join a union of their choice and the outcomes which will flow from a more efficient, reliable waterfront, including:(1) creating more exports to help reduce Australia's foreign debt and improve job opportunities for the Australian people;(2) creating more jobs in manufacturing;(3) improving the opportunity of small businesses to grow and develop in world markets;(4) improving the safety of all workplaces on the waterfront; and(5) fuelling economic growth which will lead to higher living standards for all Australians.'The fact of the matter is that we said that we would fix the waterfront and we meant it. For years and years this running sore on the waterfront—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—So what are we doing now?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am moving my motion. You will have your chance when you have understood what I have done. You will have your chance to see whether or not you are prepared to stand in this parliament and vote for genuine reform of the Australian waterfront. All the rhetoric, all the muck-raking—that has all come to an end.Mr Bob Baldwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Paterson is not in his place.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This afternoon, after I have moved successfully this suspension motion, those opposite will have not a chance to filibuster, not a chance to give us political rhetoric; they will have a simple chance, a simple choice, and that is to indicate to the Australian community whether or not they genuinely support reform of the waterfront or not. They have talked about it. They have fed out the misinformation from the MUA, but today is their opportunity—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The point of order is this: the gentleman is calling for a debate on this issue, but he has moved a motion which says `at the completion of this suspension motion and without debate'. Is it legitimate to move a suspension of standing orders to consider a motion that the parliament then cannot debate. Is it appropriate to move a motion that we cannot debate a particular proposition?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The contents of any motion, so long as they fall within the standing orders, must be heard by this place. It has been moved. We are talking about suspension of standing orders for that purpose. The terms of the motion are not within the chair's—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to pursue the matter? I suggest he remain silent. I call the Leader of the House, who is moving his motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The Leader of the Opposition had half an hour this morning, and what we are saying to him this afternoon is those opposite have to come in here and either vote for reform or vote against it. I do not think there is any doubt about what they will do: they will vote against it because the MUA require that of them.Mr Bob Baldwin interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And what an embarrassment for the Labor Party. It was only back in January when the union leadership—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I may be wrong, because it may be the government's rotational seat—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—but I do believe the member for Paterson is out of his place and he continues to interject. I ask you to call him to order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Paterson has been interjecting—and, frankly, there was so much noise I did not hear him—I have already identified to the honourable member he is out of his place. He either resumes his place if he wishes to intervene or remain silent.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This is a simple choice for the Labor Party: either they support reform or they do not; either they support the right of people to join or not join a union of their choice or they do not. We will simply put those propositions to this House. I can assure members that we on this side of the House are unequivocally, unambiguously in favour of waterfront reform.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No matter how many disruptive points of order there are, we intend that motion to be put.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Although the motion says that it should be considered without debate, will that mean that if we seek to move an amendment to the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—No, it is. Please, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please put it. You have not raised a point of order yet.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Will it mean that, if an amendment is moved to the motion, it cannot be debated either, or will you allow that to be debated?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You can raise that at the appropriate time. That is not a point of order in the middle of the member's—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Yes, it is. It is about this motion. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not—not to the motion while it is being moved. You can move it at the appropriate time.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What we have seen in this parliament in the last week is a Labor Party that have no policy positions—no position on, for example, the fact that small business interest rates have fallen, no position on the great issues of the day facing the country, such as waterfront reform, except to mouth that which has been put to them by the trade union movement and the MUA. Their response has therefore been to run a campaign of smear and gutter politics in substitute for genuine policy positions. It is therefore no surprise that we should see in the Bulletin this morning that Laurie Oakes's latest writings on politics say:Kim Beazley is failing to display strong leadership, and key people are letting him down.If ever there was a classic case of the failure of the Labor Party and the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to provide some leadership, it is on this issue of the waterfront and the need for reform. This morning the Leader of the Opposition made an incredible claim in the parliament and I understand also on radio that the levels of productivity in Australia had significantly improved and that basically we did not have a problem. He said that we had crane rates of 24 and 25.I have here the latest publication from the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, which has a March 1998 issue date—it came out at only the end of March—and it mentions the five port average crane rates in Australia. For the major container terminals where the vast bulk of the containers go through, this is the performance indicator: in December 1996, 17.1; in March 1997, 18.4; in June 1997, 18.3; in September 1997, 18.3; and, in 1997, 18.5. And he is out there claiming 24 and 25. These are the official figures; they are a national disgrace.I sat down with John Coombs at the end of 1996 and I said to him, `John, Australia cannot go on having a rate of productivity, a lack of reliability on the Australian waterfront, which puts us behind the rest of the international community.' I sat and spoke with him about the need to improve produc tivity on the waterfront. And what was his answer? His answer was, `Don't be provocative.' When you say to John Coombs, `Why does the Australian waterfront have a level of strike action nine times the national average?' what does he say? He says, `Don't be provocative.' When you say to him, `John, there are a whole lot of blokes in Melbourne who drive cranes and who get paid $90,000 a year and, on average, work only 14 hours a week,' what does he say? He says, `Don't be provocative.' When you say to him, `John, why can't we do as well as Manila where they do 30 crane lifts an hour? Why can't we do as well as New Zealand where they do 25? Why can't we do as well as Laem Chabang outside Bangkok? Why can't we do as well as Mozambique?' what does he say? He says, `Don't be provocative.' Who is the little echo who supports him? It is none other than the Leader of the Opposition.When you say to John Coombs, `Look at Australia compared to international ports,' he says, `You can't make international comparisons.' So what have we done? We have produced figures which show that the levels of productivity vary greatly in the one port, on the same ship, on the same day. Why do they vary greatly? In the afternoon, you are on ordinary time; in the evening, you are on double time and a half. But the deal on the Australian waterfront is that, when you finish the job, you get to go home and you still get paid for the whole of the shift. So, if the shift requires a couple of hours work but it is a 7½-hour shift, you get paid for the 7½ hours even though for five of them you are sitting at home watching Wednesday night at the movies—all paid for by exporters, by Australian jobs, by Australian businesses trying to compete.This situation has gone on for years and years. The Labor Party turned a blind eye to it. They forked out $430 million—$173 million of taxpayers' money—and now they say, `Our answer to this problem is that we'll bring back Bob Hawke. We will have a meeting to discuss it.' What do they want to do today? They want more discussion about this. This country has had a gutful of discussion; it is time the waterfront was fixed up. Your January resolution supported genuine competition on the waterfront. Today, when this motion is carried, you have got a simple choice: you either stand up for reform, show some leadership for a change or you deny reform and tie yourself hand and foot to the MUA as you have been all along. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The answer to the member for Canberra's point of order is that a motion for the suspension of standing orders can be amended but will require a seconder.15:26:002796Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The mask is now off, after months of deceit, months of lies, months of evasions, about what this government is on about. What we have got is the media tested market strategy for taxpayer funded consultancies that have set the groundwork, first, through Dubai and then the National Farmers Federation—3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am keen to listen to the member for Melbourne's speech, but the clock has not started to time it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will the member for Cowan resume his place. The clock ticks on anyway in a motion for the suspension of standing orders.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Some mothers do have `em. First, we had Dubai, then the National Farmers Federation training replacement workers and now the true story is coming clear, the true story is coming plain: it is about sacking 1,400 existing workers of Patrick. We have got the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, the member for Flinders, who has pronounced all of these workers en masse to be unproductive, to be worthy of the sack, to be worthy of vilification. He has whipped up public hatred and contempt. He has engaged in a vicious campaign of calumny and vilification against these workers for months and months, full of outrageous lies, abuse and stories that have no basis in fact: the wharfies in Fremantle are supposedly knocking off early to go to a strip show—based on one jocular remark from one person leaving work, joking, saying that they were going to a strip show. Some how, the vilification of wharfies in 1942—most of whom, presumably, are long dead—is a basis for sacking existing wharfies. This is the sort of outrageous stuff that this minister has been going on about.What we saw last night is the stuff of military dictatorships: in the middle of the night, 1,400 people dismissed without warning, without any reference to their performance, their individual activity. The knock on the door; they are told, `Sorry, you're gone.' What they take with them is Reith's reference. On top of their dismissal, they have got months of calumny, months of vilification that tells the whole world, every prospective employer for these, mostly, 40- to 45-year-old men: do not employ these people. So not only are they sacked but they are also put in a position where it would be extremely hard for them to ever get work again—all courtesy of this minister, who is putting his hand on the taxpayers of Australia to fund all of this.This is where the fundamental injustice of this lies: here we have the Liberal Party of Australia, the great party of the individual, the great party of Menzies that stands up for the individual—and have those 1,400 individuals got any chance at all to defend their performance as an individual worker? Answer: no. They are being treated en bloc, en masse, and are being told by this government, `You are all sacked.' They have no chance at all to defend themselves as individuals, no chance to say, `Here is my performance in Townsville, in Burnie, in Bell Bay, in Mackay or wherever.'These are not redundancies because work is continuing; the job is still there. To call it a redundancy is false. These workers are being replaced. As this opposition said from day one: they are being replaced by the NFF, which was not a competitor on the waterfront; it was a training operation for the very purpose for which it is now being used. No doubt we will see this tested in unfair dismissal proceedings. We now know why Peter Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, wants to abolish the unfair dismissal laws: so that he can sack people holus bolus with no threat of retribution. These redundancies are being funded by a new tax—another breach of a promise, just by the by—while Patricks asset strips. So this government are not only supporting Chris Corrigan's action in sacking all of these workers, they are paying him to do it. They are saying, `We will give you the money. We will tax the taxpayers of Australia—the port users of Australia and the end consumers of Australia—and we will pay you to sack these people not as individuals but as a group.'If you look at it, there are 17 ports where Patricks workers have been sacked, many of them at world's best practice in spite of the nonsense that he carries on about. At many of them there have been no strikes for years. Townsville, for example, has throughput that has quadrupled within five or six years. I challenge the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to go to Townsville, to Mackay, to Burnie and to all the other places and look those workers in the eye and tell them why they have been sacked by this government through taxpayer funded arrangements, why this government says they are engaged in industrial thuggery and why this government says they are unproductive.All of them have been sacked. They were all waking up this morning wondering what they were going to do about their mortgage, wondering what they were going to tell their spouse and their children, and wondering where they were going to get another job. This is a nasty, vicious government—a malevolent government—and the mask is finally off. The plan all the way along in this exercise has been to sack 1,400 people arbitrarily with no individual consideration of their performance. It is a bring back the dog-collar act: bring back the individual contracts and bring back the master and servant relationship. That is what they believe; that is what they are on about. The mask is now off.There are a lot of workers in this country who are now treading very nervously as a result of the events of last night. Who is next? Who is going to have the government's eye turned to it next and be told, `You are not productive enough. You are a rorter. You are going to get the axe because we say that you are a rorter.' People are asking themselves, `How can I collectively bargain? How can I deal with my employer, a large organisation with a lot of money? How can I, as an individual, collectively bargain under this government?' They are asking themselves, `Can I afford to abandon my insurance? Can I afford to say: yes, unfair dismissal legislation, we do not need that, that is fine?' They are asking themselves, `How is it that somebody who works in a world's best practice port that has not been on strike for years can be sacked, in effect by this government paying our employer to sack us, for no other reason than that we are members of the Maritime Union of Australia?'Who is next? Construction workers? Flight attendants? Teachers? Train drivers? Everybody is entitled to worry. The rule book has just been thrown out by this government. It is the action of a military dictatorship, not a democratically elected government in a society like Australia. This government says it supports competition, yet in Dampier it supports a monopoly: it supports P&O being thrown out by the state government.And it talks about rorts. We are getting one a week from this government. First we had Senator Woods, then the member for Hume (Mr Sharp) and now there are a couple of unnamed members in sight after the last couple of days. Where is that going to head? These are the great moralists of Australian politics who preached to Australian workers about rorts. There was the man who invented the nick—the man who perfected the nick and who used to lecture waterfront workers. Because he perfected the nick and got caught we now have the honourable member for Flinders as the new minister. He is only there because of what happened to his predecessor.Minister, these are people. These are human beings. These are ordinary workers. You have orchestrated their dismissal for no valid reason with regard to individual performance. This action is already provoking strikes. It is already provoking bitter confrontation, resulting in extra costs for Australian exporters. At the same time that you can find tax money to pay for sacking wharfies you cannot do the same to pay for nursing home funding. You cannot do the same for Australian hospitals but it is okay to breach a promise about taxation in order to sack wharfies. That gives you a really good indication of what this government is really about.This is the outrageous act of a vicious, malignant government. It is the act of a man—the human oil slick—who is chasing hard right-wing votes in a leadership contest and who has to show, at the cost of the jobs and the long-term futures of 1,400 workers and their families, what a hairy chest he has got. He is hurting many innocent people, throwing 1,400 workers onto the street in positions where they may not be able to pay their mortgages. They may lose their houses. Undoubtedly some marriages will break down as a result of this. He is provoking industrial conflict and imposing a new tax on Australian exporters.Irrespective of debates about productivity and regardless of what your view is—and there are numerous views about the productivity of the Australian waterfront—this is not the way.WI4REITHMr Reith—What's your view?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—My view is that you tell a lot of falsehoods in this debate. This is not the way that you deal with these issues in Australia. The right to some job security and the right to bargain collectively in this country are now in tatters as a result of this government's actions. Who is next? Is every Australian worker whom the government deems to be insufficiently productive now susceptible to being sacked arbitrarily? I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "this House deplores the action of the Government in organising the financing of the dismissal of 1,400 Australian workers in breach of the Workplace Relations Act and the relevant award provisions".This government is sowing the wind and by God it will reap the whirlwind on this issue.15:36:002798Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I second the amendment. The government has acted with maximum mendacity on this matter. Over the last 12 months the public of Australia have seen this government walk around saying that they have no involvement with the conspiracy to sack the waterfront work force. They and the employer in this case have gone around uttering assurances. As far as that is concerned, all is revealed today: they were all part of a pattern of government misleading of the Australian population, and all part now of an attack on the security of the Australian work force. Understand this: as far as the workers here are concerned they have been targeted for one reason only—not because they rort, not because they are disruptive, not because they are somehow un-Australian but because they are members of a union.In question time we drew attention to this fact. Workers in areas which have never in recent memory had anything like an industrial dispute are also under the gun and have been fired. Workers who have produced what was in the speech of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) to his legislation acknowledged as world best practice in the movement of bulk cargoes have been sacked. Workers in Townsville who have quadrupled productivity over the course of the last six years and who have contributed to that world best practice have been sacked. Workers in ports such as Burnie and other Tasmanian ports where there has not been industrial disputes in living memory have been sacked. And we have a callous Prime Minister (Mr Howard) standing up here saying, `Well, they deserve it.'They are Australians who have been productive; Australians who have families—families nowhere near as well off as those on the frontbench opposite, who have been scurrying away from the consequences of one of the greatest rorts of all time in the taxation system in this country, collapsing standards in this place of reportability and accountability. Those opposite are grand-scale rorters standing in judgment of ordinary Australians doing the things that ordinary Australians do—ordinary Australians prepared to negotiate on issues related to productivity; ordinary Australians living within the constraints of the workplace act and conforming to the terms of that act.And the frustration of this government, at least in part, represents the frustration they have with their act and the competence of this minister. Nobody looking at this situation objectively can have anything other than utter contempt for the incompetence with which the industrial relations policies of Patrick have been pursued over the course of the last three or four months—mendacious, incompetent, pathetic, and joined in that by the minister here.There is going to be a lot of water flow under the bridge on this but every Australian knows this: when it comes to jobs, when it comes to your personal dignity, when it comes to your opportunity to support your family, this government is not in your corner. When it comes to your sense of security, as you sit down to borrow to pay off your house and other debts, this government does not stand in your corner. When it comes to the opportunity to live the life of an ordinary Australian with some degree of happiness, comfort and certitude about where you are headed, this government does not stand in your corner. When it comes to demanding of your political process basic decency and honesty, and to be governed by a government indifferent to the consequences of their actions because they are fair minded, then everybody in this country knows that this government is not in their corner. When it comes to the basic decent compassion that people expect of government in this nation everybody in this nation knows that this government is not in their corner.This is a government without a shred of credibility on this. This is a government which invites the Australian people to support a set of actions the like of which has not been seen by any Australian government in recent times. This is a government which stands exposed for its basic deceit. As far as its last election promises are concerned, it is a government that should be condemned. (Time expired) Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Tanner's amendment) stand part of the question.15:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)85Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. 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. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Downer, A. J. G. Brereton, L. J.Fischer, T. A. Sawford, R. W.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the motion (Mr Reith's ) be agreed to.15:52:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)85Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. 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. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.47Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.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. Rocher, A. C.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Downer, A. J. G. Brereton, L. J.Fischer, T. A. Sawford, R. W.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I now put the question that the House has resolved should be put without debate, which also precludes any proposed amendment, namely, that this House supports the introduction of genuine competi tion on the waterfront and the right of all employees, et cetera. The question is that the motion, as proposed in the resolution just agreed to by this chamber, be agreed to.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the minister has not moved his motion. We have had a suspension of standing orders to give him the capacity to read it. He has not chosen to stand and move his motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I accept the motion from the Leader of the House in the circumstances. The question is, however, that, the motion having been passed, that resolution is forthwith put. I have just put the resolution.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The motion that has been before the House has been passed by the House by an absolute majority—that is, that the Leader of the House shall move forthwith at the completion of this suspension motion—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He has not moved it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do uphold that point of order. I believe the Leader of the House should move the motion.2801Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That this House supports the introduction of genuine competition on the waterfront and the right of all employees to join or not to join a union of their choice and the outcomes which will flow from a more efficient, reliable waterfront, including:(1) creating more exports to help reduce Australia's foreign debt and improve job opportunities for the Australian people;(2) creating more jobs in manufacturing;(3) improving the opportunity of small businesses to grow and develop in world markets;(4) improving the safety of all workplaces on the waterfront; and(5) fuelling economic growth which will lead to higher living standards for all Australians.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the motion he moved did not preclude debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no capacity for you to move an amendment.Question put:That the motion (Mr Reith's ) be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was that the motion be put without debate; `without debate' excludes any amendment.DT4CREANMr Crean—That is not what he said.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—If you move an amendment, it is not debate. Read your standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is the resolution that has been passed by this House. The House has already accepted the motion that it will be moved forthwith and without debate. Therefore, the House has passed the resolution.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if that is your ruling then the Leader of the House should have moved that way. He should have included in his motion the words `without debate'. He did not. Therefore, the only motion that is currently before the House is the one which he has just alluded to, to which we are perfectly entitled to move an amendment.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He failed to move it correctly. All he got was a suspension of standing orders to move the motion.DT4CREANMr Crean—I think the division should be called off, Mr Speaker.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is exactly right. Twinkle toes has failed again.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that remark, thank you very much.DT4CREANMr Crean—I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have been taking advice because in my view the resolution passed by the House has precluded the Leader of the Opposition from moving an amendment. I believe that to be so and I therefore uphold the ruling that the Leader of the Opposition cannot move an amendment where the House has determined that the question should be put without debate.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I move dissent from your ruling. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You cannot do so at this stage. You can do it afterwards.16:00:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)87Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Downer, A. J. G. Brereton, L. J.Fischer, T. A. Sawford, R. W.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the Leader of the Opposition intends to move a dissent from my ruling. I will repeat my ruling: the House, having carried the introductory part of the motion moved by the Leader of the House—that is from `That so much' down to `suspension motion and without debate'—it was only necessary for the Leader of the House to move part of the motion that commenced `That this House' finishing up with `for all Australians'. Therefore, the motion having just been passed, that motion is carried.WI4REITHMr Reith—Just before the Leader of the Opposition does that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the Leader of the Opposition intends to move a dissent from my ruling. I will repeat my ruling: the House, having carried the introductory part of the motion moved by the Leader of the House—that is from `That so much' down to `suspension motion and without debate'—it was only necessary for the Leader of the House to move part of the motion that commenced `That this House' finishing up with `for all Australians'. Therefore, the motion having just been passed, that motion is carried.WI4REITHMr Reith—Just before the Leader of the Opposition does that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Dissent from Ruling280216:04:002802Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We half welcome to this place the first manifestation of the Reith government; no, sorry, the second manifestation of the Reith government. I move:That Mr Speaker's ruling be dissented from.There is only one particular suspension of standing orders that is acceptable in this place—that is, the motion to suspend standing orders. Then the subsequent motions which are placed before this chamber are motions which are placed before this chamber to deal with it. There is no provision in standing orders to suspend under certain conditions. There is no provision whatsoever to do that. The only provision that lies there is the basic suspension of standing orders. It would, of course, be possible for the minister to assure himself that the matter could be deliberated upon without debate simply by gagging debate on the subject.But I do find it passing strange that the government in these circumstances has decided that they do not want debate on that motion. They have said that they are inordinately proud of their work here this day, that they are inordinately proud of what they have done to ordinary people in this country, that they think they have had a terrific outcome as far as ordinary people in this country are concerned and that we ought to in this place provide opportunities for one after another to stand up and say why they thought it was such a good idea.One of the cardinal elements of accountability in this place is that we should be able to debate matters of substantial importance. What this government has wanted us to pass without debate and then foolishly failed to move in the appropriate fashion was that this House support the introduction of genuine competition on the waterfront and so on.Any point here is imminently debateable in this place as to whether the course of action this government has gone down is a course of action that this country would prefer or a course of action that this parliament ought to approve of. For them to stand in this place and move that a matter should be considered without debate is an absolute abdication of their preparedness to defend themselves in this place. It is of a piece with their indefensible actions over the last six to nine months when people in this country have been persistently and deliberately misled.They think themselves smart on this matter. They think themselves smart that they have no relationship of integrity with the Australian people. They think themselves smart that they can trick Australian people out of their jobs. They think themselves smart that they can approach this issue on this occasion on this day with minimal public consideration of what they are up to.Mr Speaker, you cannot allow a suspension of standing orders to be used to permit such action to take place—to forbid, as you effectively do, the capacity to move an amendment to a motion before the House. That is unprecedented—to remove the capacity to move an amendment to a motion before this House; an amendment which, if we had had the capacity to move it, would have indicated a whole variety of concerns on our part for the 1,400 workers who have been sacked—the 1,400 workers, many of whom have never been on strike; many of whom are in ports which have, in the memories of any person in this House, not been on strike; many of whom have sat down in successive efforts to improve efficiency on the waterfront, and delivered.I think of the workers in Townsville, who have quadrupled their productivity over the last four years. According to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), they are being punished—not because they have been regular strikers, not because they have been in confrontation with their employer, not because they have committed acts of inefficiency, not because they have been rorting, but for one reason only: they are members of a union.When this Prime Minister supported the introduction of this Industrial Relations Bill, when the industrial relations minister introduced his Industrial Relations Bill, when we pointed out that the object of this Industrial Relations Bill was to deprive workers of freedom of choice, we were told, `You are talking nonsense. Choice is what we are about; workers can choose to be in unions, or they can reject the option of being in unions; workers can choose to collectively bargain, or they can reject the option of collective bargaining; workers can choose to be protected by awards and an enterprise bargaining process, or they can choose to have individual agreements. All their rights are protected. Australians love freedom. Australians love an opportunity to have a choice. That is all we stand for.' Then calumny is heaped on the union movement, calumny is heaped on those who want to collectively bargain; nevertheless, they have that choice.What has been revealed today is that there is no choice. The choice exists only in so far as the government are prepared to permit it, and no further. If they choose that you do not have the right to collectively bargain, if they choose that you do not have the right to exercise freedom of association, if they—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is moving a dissent from your ruling. In his contribution to the debate, he is discussing the question of the previous resolution before the House. He really must confine his remarks to areas where the ruling is inappropriate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is ranging fairly wide, but I think he has licence to do so in the present circumstances.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I thank the Speaker for that ruling. What I was, in fact, referring to—and I thank you for your licence in this regard, Mr Speaker—was the amendment that I was unable to move because of the set of circumstances from which we are dissenting. The reason why I would be moving that amendment, were we to have the chance, would be the failure of the minister to move his motion in the appropriate form, having been given permission by the parliament to do so, correctly interpreted by yourself, and therefore providing us with the opportunity to do that. As I was saying before being interrupted—and as would have been covered in the amendment that we would have moved, had your ruling permitted us to do so—those workers have had their capacity of freedom of association ripped away from them.The Prime Minister stands in this place and thumbs his nose at these ordinary working Australians and says, `You're being punished for the activities of somebody else; well, serves you right.' What sort of community operates on that basis? What sort of community allows freedom of association to be ripped away by the whim of a Prime Minister? What security is there for anyone?When you look at a dictatorship created, what you see is a step by step process by which your rights and freedoms are ripped away from you. The things that have made a particular nation, with democratic practice at the heart and core of its culture, are ripped away from you. That is what happens, and that is precisely what has happened in this instance—they have been absolutely ripped away from them.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—What about compelling people to join a union?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The member who is interjecting on me talks of compulsion and competition. This motion which we have debated talks about competition. What competition, my friend, is being permitted at Dampier?There has been an action at that great exporting port of Dampier—a far more significant exporting port than Adelaide, a far more significant exporting port than Brisbane. What has happened at that port? P&O have been deprived of their rights to operate in that port. A monopoly has been established on one basis and one basis only: that those who agree to be participants in the work force of that monopoly do not join a union. That is the basis on which that proposition has been involved. Because the workers of P&O exercised their right to join a union, to collectively bargain, not only were they removed from the waterfront—so was P&O.This is not a small incident, old son. This happens to be a major issue. This happens to be what this government is supposed to be talking about in relation to competition. P&O said, `Okay, we've lost the contract. Can we come on and compete? Can we come onto the Dampier waterfront and compete with this non-union operation that has been put in in place of us?' No. And does this government support it? Yes. This government, which is supposedly about competition, says, `Bully for you, Western Australian government; get on with it.'This is the freedom of association that you support. This is the freedom for ordinary, individual Australians exercising their conscience that you have supported. That is what you have associated yourself with in this regard. It is very much to your detriment that you have done so. It speaks ill of you that you have chosen to do so.There is a much more complicated picture around the Australian waterfront than that which is being portrayed here. When you look at the operations of Patricks and compare them with the operations of P&O—because this motion here talks about competition—you find various things.There is a competent operation here in Australia being operated by a company that knows basically how to do things, not a company that enjoys good relations all the time with its work force but which actually knows how to operate. Then there is another operation being operated by somebody with no experience of management of anything other than a cash box. The consequence of that is incompetence in management on that waterfront. We have had resignations from supervisory personnel associated with that company pointing out that the lack of productivity is as much a problem of management as it is a problem of that work force.That work force is to be sacked as far as this particular company is concerned. That work force is to take the blame for their incompetence. That work force is to be fired and replaced. That is what is going to happen as far as they are concerned. This parliament does not have a chance to debate that matter because this parliament had a motion before it which said that a matter would be put forthwith without debate. But, when that motion was actually moved, it was moved in mistaken form by the smart alec associated with it.There is a situation as far as this country is concerned now where workers' rights are threatened, Australian rights are threatened, and this parliament is precluded from debating the principle motion before it. There is a piece of legislation before this parliament, but after I spoke to it no further discussion could take place upon it. There is now another motion before this House—this particular proposition—and the parliament is denied deliberation on this motion. It was denied deliberation on this motion and would have been denied deliberation on this motion within standing orders if the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) had bothered to move his motion in the correct form, which should have read:That this House without debate supports the introduction . . .And so on. That is the correct form in which it should have been moved if it was to be protected from the operations of the standing orders.That was what that smart alec Leader of the House should have done, because at the end of the day the Speaker is in a situation where he has to make a very quick interpretation of what actually happens in this place. If the Speaker was well served by his Leader of the House, on this occasion what the Leader of the House would have done was this: he would have moved his motion `that this House supports without debate the introduction' and so on of what he called genuine competition. He failed to do that and he let his Speaker down when he moved in that way. The consequence of letting his Speaker down when he moved in that way was to put this parliament in a situation where we now have to deliberate on a dissent motion in relation to the Speaker's ruling.It is necessary to deal with that dissent motion in relation to the Speaker's ruling because what we are confronting here is an action which Australians must contemplate. There has been so much deceit in the presentation of this issue in this place. Part of that deceit has gone, for example, to the alleged cost of stevedoring operations as far as the waterfront is concerned. We had the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) standing up here and stating the enormous burden that is imposed upon rural imports. The cost of stevedoring charges for a kilo of beef is about 1¼c. That is the cost of stevedoring charges on a kilo of beef.There was a time when the farmers had genuinely legitimate claims against people on the waterfront. The relationships between the farming community and those on the waterfront were utterly poisonous. The hardworking farmers of this nation were being massively frustrated. That was one of the reasons why, when we took up the Howard-Fraser mess on the waterfront—the massively overmanned waterfront with the horrendous work practices across the board—that had sat there for years with a cheerio show from the Liberal Party just letting it pass through, we firstly went to bulk cargo. We went to the bulk of goods that moved across that waterfront; two-thirds of the goods that moved across that waterfront. We went to them. What did we say? We said, `Fix it.' And they fixed it.They produced world best practice, sufficient world best practice for the minister to be able to stand at the dispatch box earlier today and say, unattributed, `We do not have to make provision for sacking any workers involved with bulk cargo'—although I think there is a question mark over that, quite frankly—`because we have world best practice.' It was just a slight sentence that passed. He just dismissed as irrelevant two-thirds of what goes on on the Australian waterfront with the words, `That is world best practice.' Two-thirds of what passes across the Australian waterfront goes with world best practice. Then we have the situation which is being dealt with here. What is going on in Patrick at the moment—or at least until last night—was an enterprise bargaining process.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Asset stripping.PE4BEAZLEYMr BEAZLEY—The honourable member for Shortland also points out that what was going on in Patrick was asset stripping. That was also going on as far as Patrick was concerned. What was also going on, apart from asset stripping by the management, was an enterprise bargaining process which has been available and which has already produced a 40 per cent improvement in productivity on the waterfront—a 40 per cent improvement on productivity on the waterfront.There is more needed to be done. Who admitted that more needed to be done? Those workers on the waterfront as well as management. Who was prepared to discuss better productivity? Those workers on the waterfront with management. What were they doing with Patrick? They were discussing productivity change with Patrick. What Patrick did not want to do was to arrive at a conclusion. Patrick have not been motivated by any outcome other than the destruction of the union. That has been the only outcome.A product of destruction of the union is the destruction of ordinary Australians' rights—ordinary Australians' rights which we fought two world wars to have held in place. Do not kid yourself that that was not an issue in those two conflicts. What we valued in this country above all was that we were different. What we valued in this country above all was that Jack was as good as his master. Part of Jack being as good as his master is that Jack had freedom of choice. Jack was able to take a decision about whether or not he wanted to bargain with his master as an individual or bargain with his master with his friends. That is what we had in this country and we were proud of it. We saw it as central to democracy.I remember when I was first elected to this place that both sides of the House were standing with Solidarity in Poland, and both sides of this House were waving banners for ILO conventions on freedom of association. Both sides of this House were booting the Soviets right up the bracket for their Communist dictatorship suppression of workers' rights. But somewhere along the way to the forum, the other side of the House got mugged. Somewhere along the way to the forum, the standards that they used to uphold in criticism of totalitarian regimes were stuck in the back pocket. They stuck them in the back pocket here today with the legislation they have introduced in this place and the motivation that they have associated with their resolutions. Because of the Speaker's incorrect ruling in not upholding our point of order on that, dictated by the failure of the Leader of the House to move his motion appropriately and to include the words `that this House supports without debate the introduction', and so on, we have not had the opportunity to point these things out. We have not had the opportunity that a parliament ought to have to deliberate on these things. It does no harm to this parliament to be able to deliberate on these matters. In fact, it is essential that we do. Unless this relevant dissent motion is carried, we simply will not have that opportunity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?16:24:002807McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I second the motion. I will not take the full time, because I will have an opportunity to speak on the MPI, which the government has assured us we will still have. This dissent goes to the very purpose of why we assemble here in the parliament. It is about accountability. It seems to be absolutely clear that you cannot lose your right to debate in this House without a substantive resolution. You cannot lose your right to debate just caught up in a resolution about suspension of standing orders.The resolution before us has three action points in it. The first is about the suspension of standing orders. The second is about the substantive motion. The third is that that substantive motion should be discussed without debate. We could have dealt with it in two resolutions—one to suspend and one to say, `Without debate we should consider the following resolution.' But we cannot in one resolution both suspend the standing orders and take away from the whole of the House—but effectively from this side of the House, and from the Independents who wanted to raise points of order—the right to debate a very fundamental issue.What an issue it is. It goes to the very liberties of the citizens. The parliament and its freedom of speech is at its core for the defence of the liberties of the citizens. What a motion we had today, relating to the liberties of, at the moment, 1,400 Australian citizens. But, in terms of principle, it relates to nine million Australian citizens who work as employees in this country. All of them have their rights at stake in the nature of the debate we are having, or sought to have. If we had been able to move an amendment to this resolution, we would have been able to debate it.Had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) been able to move an amendment, we could have addressed this resolution, and we would have been able to talk about the conditions under which we would have been prepared to consider such a resolution. We would have been able to consider issues of whether the workers being sacked was in accordance with the law, whether it was lawful; it needs to be in accordance with the awards and the agreements which employers have entered into.We would have wanted to say something about the alternative routes by which a decent government would go about seeking to achieve the purposes of waterfront reform. This debate in this parliament is not about whether the waterfront ought to be more efficient. It is a debate about whether, in the pursuit of the false goal of waterfront reform by smashing the MUA, we ought be able to take away the protections and securities which ordinary Australian workers have when they go to work. When they go to work they think that, if they have not done anything wrong, at the end of the day they should still have a job. They came into work—they were working—and got sacked. It did not have anything to do with the individual activities of those workers. The individual performance of those 1,400 people was not assessed. Nobody said, `Well, sir, you have not done a very good job.' They got rid of the lot. Why? Mr Corrigan made it very clear: because they were members of the MUA, and he could not get the agreement he wanted.It is true that some of those people had been on strike. My distinct recollection of the law passed by this parliament is that workers actually have a right to do that. I have always thought that in Australia it is a right we expect people to have and that they can do it in accordance with the proper law. There is no argument even by the government that the strikes that had taken place were lawful. But what we have here is a whole lot of people who were not involved in those strikes. They were just members of the same union whose members thousands of miles away—in a different port, but with the same employer—went on strike about their enterprise agreement.Of course, we have one port in Australia where the employer signed the enterprise agreement. That was the port of Melbourne. There is an interesting debate about why that was the only place that was signed. It will be debated on another occasion. That agreement said `no compulsory redundancies'. It was signed, and we did not get a chance to talk about that today because of the nature of this ruling.Not only is it a very worrying principle that we can have the right of members to debate issues taken away without substantive resolution but we also have had it on a question that goes very clearly to the liberties of the citizens and to the circumstance of 1,400 Australian families in the lead-up to Easter. In Sydney, the kids will say, `Can we go to the Royal Easter Show, Dad?' Dad says, `No, I'm sorry; I haven't got a job.' `Are we going to go away on school holidays, Dad; there are two weeks school holidays coming up?' `No, we can't; Dad's just lost his job.' But we cannot talk about it in here. What a happy Easter that is for the 1,400 Australian families who are affected by the matters that we have been dealing with today!It is not the attitude that most Australians think should take us into the Easter break. It is not the way in which most Australians think we should deal with Easter. It is not the way most Australians think we should deal with the rights of Australians; and your ruling, Mr Speaker, is not the way I believe we should deal with the rights of members in this place to speak up on behalf of their constituents.16:30:002808Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—Mr Speaker, the government will support you in your ruling. It is absolutely indisputably a correct ruling and it should be upheld by this House, by all people of honour in this place. On occasions, Mr Speaker, you are called upon to exercise great wisdom in interpreting standing orders when you are challenged, often in a very unruly manner, in relation to the rulings that you have made. Sometimes those decisions can be difficult, sometimes maybe even open to interpretation, but in this case I would submit that your ruling was simple, it was easy to make and it was utterly and absolutely correct.The Speaker's ruling in this instance upheld the specific decision of the House. You were left with no discretion. The House decided that this particular matter would not be debated and you upheld the decision that the House made. In that regard, your decision was absolutely correct. It might be that this procedure was a little unusual in that the House would decide, in discussing a suspension motion, that the matter that would be dealt with after the suspension would not be the subject of debate. That might be unusual but it was certainly within the capacity of the House to make that decision—and it did so. It made the decision completely and appropriately. Once that decision was made, your ruling was absolutely correct to uphold the decision of the House and to proceed immediately with the vote on the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Reith).It is not as though the decision that the House made was one to deny debate on this issue. There have been plenty of opportunities for debate. In fact, there is to be a matter of public importance to follow which will provide the opposition with yet another opportunity to contribute on this particular issue. The day began with an opportunity that was given by the House this morning to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) at 9.30 when the bills were introduced to speak to the House. We provided that opportunity. We could have easily allowed the normal procedures to follow; in other words, the debate be adjourned immediately and the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition members who wished to speak have that opportunity when the second reading debate came before the House. We did not adopt that normal procedure. We granted indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition to give him an immediate opportunity to reply.Then we came to question time today, a time when the opposition normally have 10 questions to put to the House on matters of concern to them. Did they take that opportunity then to raise 10 matters in relation to the waterfront? No. It was such a low priority in their own mind that they ran out of steam after only four waterfront questions, and then they went on to other subjects, which clearly demonstrated that their own priorities in that regard were not so high. So there was plenty of opportunity.Then came the motion of quite some substance, and I think importance, moved by the Leader of the House. Even on that occasion the opposition were given their chances to reply—and they got more than the opportunity that might normally be available during the suspension debate because they actually moved their amendment. They provided to the House the information of what was going to be proposed in their amendment and the House dealt with that amendment in the process of dealing with the motion calling for the suspension of standing orders.So there has been plenty of opportunity provided to the opposition and there will be plenty of opportunity provided in the future for them to address this sort of issue. The Speaker in his ruling that the decision of the House should be upheld made the only possible decision that he could make in those circumstances—and the government will certainly be supporting the Speaker in his ruling.The reality is that the opposition are raising this matter to hide their embarrassment about having just voted in this House against waterfront reform. They ought to be ashamed of having taken this action, trying to vote down the motion—they voted against it—seeking to introduce genuine competition on the waterfront.The motion that was voted on called for genuine competition on the waterfront. Members opposite, members of the Labor Party, voted in this House just a short time ago against genuine reform on the waterfront. They want the rorts to continue, they want the overmanning to continue, they want the inefficiencies to continue and they want the national embarrassment on our waterfronts to continue. They are against reform.The next part of the question that they voted against was the right of employees to join or not join a union. Is the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) actually saying that he voted against a motion acknowledging the right of employees to join a union or not join a union? I think it needs to go on the public record—the people of Australia need to know—that the opposition voted against a motion which gives people the right to join a union or not join a union.Then the motion went on to refer to the outcomes which would flow from a more efficient and reliable waterfront. The member for Canberra, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), the opposition spokesman for industry, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), voted against a whole series of measures which would in fact demonstrate the benefits of an efficient and reliable waterfront.Is the member for Hotham going to go home to his constituents and explain to them why he voted against reforms to create more exports, to help reduce Australia's foreign debt, to improve job opportunities for the Australian people? The members of the Labor Party have just finished voting against those worthy objectives. They have also voted against creating more jobs in manufacturing. How is the member for Hotham going to explain to his industry constituency why he voted against more jobs in manufacturing?They also voted against improving the opportunities for small business to grow and develop in world markets. The opposition do not like small business. They have always been against small business. The only thing they do for small business is turn big businesses into small businesses because of their anti-industry policy. They voted against it. They also voted against measures to improve the safety of all workplaces on the waterfront. They are against safety on the waterfront. What an extraordinary decision from the opposition!Finally, they voted against fuelling economic growth which will lead to higher living standards for all Australians. This is the resolution that the honourable member for Hotham, the honourable member for Canberra and the honourable member for Burke have voted against. Is it any wonder that the opposition are embarrassed? Is it any wonder that the opposition are seeking to dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, to try to distract attention from their own actions in voting against reform on the waterfront?All Australians want to see a more efficient and safer waterfront, except members opposite. All Australians want to create more exports. They want to create more jobs in manufacturing. They want to see small business more profitable. They want to see improved safety on the waterfront. They want to see economic growth. All Australians want that; but the members of the Labor Party voted against it. Is it any wonder that they are ashamed? Is it any wonder that they are trying to distract attention?They want a waterfront, it seems, that is mocked by the rest of the world. They want to see a waterfront that remains at a level where it is less productive even than places like Manila, Mozambique and New Zealand. They want Australia to remain an international laughing stock. It seems as though the opposition have lost themselves in the mire of these issues, where they could do nothing. They spent $400 million, but achieved nothing in making our waterfront an effective place to work.This House has just voted to support the introduction of genuine competition on the waterfront. It supported the right of employees to join or not join a union. It supported a more efficient and reliable waterfront. It has voted to support that. But it was not a unanimous vote. There was one group of dinosaurs who decided that they would vote against these important matters of reform—members opposite.I have not had the privilege of reading in great detail the book by the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). But I think I can be absolutely certain that his book would not have advocated the sorts of policies that were voted against by his colleagues today. In his book, I am sure he would not advocate propositions which would reduce jobs in manufacturing, which would help increase Australia's foreign debt, and which would help make small businesses' life more difficult. Yet he, with his colleagues today, has in fact voted against the various principles that he espoused at the National Press Club only a short time ago and which were supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Their memories are short. They can write books and persuade the gullible public to spend their money on buying the books. But when it comes to actually implementing what is in the books, their attitude is totally different.Of course, in this particular situation the shame of the opposition will reverberate around the country as it becomes clear that they are standing hand in hand with those who would keep our waterfront inefficient. I wonder quite often, when the member for Canberra and others come into this place and speak in defence of the sorts of practices that have been going on at the waterfront, what they say to the people in the factories, the farms and the industries of Australia who have been struggling hard over a long time to improve their own efficiency. They have endured some pain and hardship to make the industry of Australia more efficient, to have the best farms and the best mines in the world, only to have all of their efforts undermined by the inefficiencies and the rorts on the waterfront, by the overmanning and by the excessive costs of getting things out of our country.This is a country with a relatively small population that is utterly dependent upon exports if it is to have world-class industry, world-class production and the sorts of costs of production that you achieve through international scale industry. Clearly we can achieve those benefits only if we have an efficient waterfront. That is why the actions of this government in finally taking the sword to many of these unacceptable practices are so commended by the people of Australia. That is why this action is so supported by Australians right from west to east, by all people who believe in a more productive Australia, by all those workers in factories, in the mines and on the farms of Australia who have done their bit, who have made their own contributions towards building a more productive country.They expect the same from the people who are earning $80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 on the waterfront. I should not use the term `earning'—being paid that amount of money to occupy space on the wharves and hold our exports to ransom. These sorts of things are unacceptable practices. But they are the sorts of things that have just been supported by the opposition. So they hide their shame by seeking to question your perfectly correct ruling on this matter, Mr Speaker.The reality is that your ruling is absolutely correct. You have upheld the specific decision of this House. The ruling is correct. The decision was made by this House in a democratic way and you, as the upholder of the decisions of this House, have acted perfectly correctly in your ruling. Mr Speaker, I commend you on having ruled absolutely correctly on this issue. The opposition are merely creating a smokescreen by trying to dissent from this particular ruling. They have had their opportunities. They will have plenty more opportunities to discuss these sorts of issues. I commend you on your ruling. The government will be supporting you. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:49:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)43Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.87Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Holding, A. C. Halverson, R. G.Jenkins, H. A. Fischer, T. A.McLeay, L. B. Reid, N. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Questions Without Notice281128112811Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer that I gave the honourable member for Curtin during question time today which was in relation to anti-avoidance provisions applying to franking credit trading. The anti-avoidance provisions applying to franking credit trading are separate general anti-avoidance provisions in the franking credit trading and dividend streaming draft legislation. The franking credit trading dividend streaming anti-avoidance rule relates to a tax benefit obtained by other than incidental purposes, as I mentioned. Part 4A, which is a separate part, relies on a sole or dominant purpose for the tax benefit.The proposed new anti-avoidance provisions in the franking credit trading dividend streaming draft legislation will not be triggered merely because a person has acquired or disposed of either Telstra instalment receipts or, upon their conversion, Telstra shares. It will be triggered, as I said earlier, only if there are unusual circumstances accompanying the relevant transactions which demonstrate artificiality or contrivance in commercial features or which appear to stultify the real purpose of share ownership. I thank the House for that opportunity.Personal Explanations281216:54:002812Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—This morning I was sent a facsimile of an article published in the Prosh newspaper which is distributed by members of the University of Western Australia campus in the run-up to their Prosh week next week. The article is headed `Useless Alan Rocher out for the count'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member needs to show where he has been misrepresented!ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—It is peppered with remarks such as `the most pathetic politician since Federation'-Mr Melham interjecting—ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—Hear me out, please. It said that I had `lost the plot upon hearing he cannot contest the next election for the seat of Curtin as a Liberal'. The author went on to say that I am a useless pile of excrement, but he—or she—did not use the word `excrement'. I think the word used is an Anglo-Saxon word of four letters. He goes on to say `all he talks about is tax'. It is peppered with these lines, but I will not bore you with all of them. He does cast reflections on my French heritage when he says, `Alan Rocher, he sounds like a gourmet chocolate.'So far, so good—subtle, constructive, considerate political comment! I have no objection to that. But then the author had the effrontery to write, `He probably can't even play cricket.' Enough is enough; we can only stand so much! I scored my first century in senior cricket at the age of 16. I have trophies—admittedly unpolished—at home for winning batting averages for my clubs. I scored 67 as an opening batsman for the Flotation Cricket Club in the grand final of the West Coast of Tasmania cricket competition in 1957, and paved the way for victory. I play for parliamentary XIs. I secured the wicket of Ross Edwards, an international Australian, with the first ball I ever bowled to him. I had Keith Stackpole dropped at the MCG off the first ball, by Ray Groom—and I will never forgive him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member's prowess is well and truly established.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—If the author of that unforgivable accusation has a skerrick of decency about him, he will publish an unqualified retraction. Might I say that I also extend my best wishes to the students of the University of Western Australia for a successful Prosh next week and thank them for the great support they give to Western Australian charities.Questions to the Speaker281228122812Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—Mr Speaker, as you will be aware, there is a committee known as the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group—or POITAG for short. That committee has performed a valu able bipartisan role over the years to ensure that the IT facilities provided to the parliament are relevant to members' needs. Unfortunately, the committee has met on only two or three occasions during the current parliament and has been unable to play any effective role, even though substantial changes are now taking place in the parliamentary computing environment. Will you now assess this matter and ensure that the committee is able to play an effective role in the near future?2813Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The field in which that committee inquires is of critical importance in this place, particularly with the concerns we all have about the millennium bug. In those circumstances, having met not only with the honourable member but also with the honourable member for Menzies, I have suggested we might have a meeting in the first week of the budget session, hopefully with the deputy speakers and me, to see how we can best progress the deliberations of the committee. I commend the honourable gentlemen and others who are members of that committee for the work they are undertaking on behalf of us all.28132813Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. Without the matter being taken offence to by any member from the other side, today you asked me to withdraw the word `fraud' when I used it. On 12 March 1998, while you were in the chair, the Treasurer said, `He is'—referring to the Leader of the Opposition—`nothing but a fraud.' If it is appropriate for you to draw attention to your concern when we say it without it being raised from the other side of the House, why is it not also appropriate to draw attention to it when they say it?2813Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is appropriate for both sides of the House to observe standing order 153 and I draw all members' attention to the context of that particular standing order. Frankly, in the hubbub of this place, there are often words that are said that one does not pick up. I believe that members should not use expressions which in any way are critical of the character or conduct of other persons in this place. Certainly, when I hear such words, it would be my intention as far as possible to stop members doing so.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is becoming increasingly the practice—and I ask for your guidance—for members in this place to ask you for advisorial readings. I seem to recall that, except on odd occasions recently, that has never been the case. I wonder, if that burden is to be heaped on you, whether you might not like to review the precedents that have occurred in this place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Curtin is, of course, correct. The Speaker is only required to answer on matters relating to matters of administration and certainly as far as questions under 144 to ministers are concerned. The Speaker cannot be asked for legal opinions. Today I have accepted the questions.28132813Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This question relates to yesterday in this House. The debate got a bit willing but when I came in here on the suspension of standing orders, just after the dinner break, in the middle of the debate the Hansard records the member for Paterson, Mr Bob Baldwin, saying of me, `You've got the political morals of an alley cat.' The Deputy Speaker, Mr Nehl, was in the chair at the time—and this is recorded at page 1879 of Hansard —and the Deputy Speaker in fact warned the member for Paterson. I immediately asked for those words to be withdrawn and for there to be an apology. You might recall, because the member for Swan is in the House at the moment, that he had to come into the place and apologise for using similar words.I have raised this with the Deputy Speaker but I am drawing it to your attention because it has not come back to me. I persisted with this but my time was running out and I needed to get some points on the record. The Deputy Speaker at the time said that he could not hear because of the noise but that he had warned the member for Paterson and that that was the only action he intended to take at that moment. My question has been to the Deputy Speaker that, having regard to the record, does he intend, or through you, to require the member for Paterson to withdraw that statement about me, because it is on the record and the record will demonstrate that I asked for it to be withdrawn at the first available opportunity?2814Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—While I, like you, do not accept that the words were particularly appropriate it does so happen that I turned to Hansard and noted that on 26 May 1983, on 8 December 1983 and on 28 August 1995 the person who was the previous Prime Minister used exactly those words about people who were in the then opposition. Having said that, I do not approve of the words used and had I been here I would certainly have required the member to withdraw them at the time. If the words are not required to be withdrawn at the time there is no procedure available to me other than for me to ask the honourable member, who is not now present in the chamber, to take note of the request from the honourable member and if he so desires he can come in and apologise. I understand there are two or three other questions of a similar character still before the parliament.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, you made the point about a withdrawal not being required. It was required at the time and the member for Hotham did ask. So this is a situation that is even further enhanced by the request—10000Mr SPEAKER—I point out to the honourable member for Banks that, as I understand it, the Deputy Speaker said that he did not hear the words and, as a result, I have put the appropriate solution to the House. In the absence of the member concerned there is no other course available to me.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: there have been many occasions on which the Speaker has not heard the words, and I accept that. But on every occasion that I am aware of where the member against whom they have been directed has asked for them to be withdrawn the Speaker of the time has always said, `I did not hear the words but I would ask the member to withdraw.' That did not happen on this occasion. That is what I am also trying to draw to your attention. The Hansard record is clear on what was said, and my request was not pursued.10000Mr SPEAKER—I would point out that past Speakers have not done as the honourable member has just suggested. I have a quote from 28 August 1995, on page 583 of the Hansard , where the former Prime Minister, having used those words, said:So what? For someone with the morals of an alley cat . . . The then Speaker said:The Prime Minister might just withdraw that comment.The former Prime Minister then said:I will withdraw it to emphasise the `So what?' comment . . . I suggest that there has been a solution proposed. I have suggested to the House that the honourable member for Paterson, if he so wishes, may come into this House and withdraw those words. It is up to him to do so.28142814Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—In the adjournment debate last night you would recall that the member for O'Connor failed to unconditionally withdraw a physical threat against me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not a question to me. If you wish to pursue matters you do so at the time. The matter has to be processed at the time. I will hear you briefly but the question at the moment is not within the standing orders.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is inappropriate for members of the opposition to use this occasion of questions to you to canvass matters that happened in the past and to argue points of procedure. This period is to ask you questions about matters within your administrative responsibility and I do not believe it is appropriate to keep canvassing rulings endlessly, time and time again, as the opposition have been doing during this period.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is totally correct. There is no responsibility on me to answer but I am trying hard to ensure that members at least have some opportunity. I suggest the member for Grayndler specifically addresses a question within my responsibility.R36Mr ALBANESE—Page 476 of House of Representatives Practice indicates that offensive words will be withdrawn unconditionally. You will recall that last night I said:I think this is an eminently reasonable request, which is that the member for O'Connor withdraw the threat unconditionally.You responded:The member for O'Connor withdrew his remarks.My question to you is this: given that the member for Werriwa was forced to leave the House just two minutes earlier under section 304A for normal interjections, will you ensure that in future such physical threats across the chamber are withdrawn unconditionally?2815Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I think the honourable member understands that there is fairly robust debate in this place from time to time. The honourable member for O'Connor did withdraw the remark and I take it as such.28152815Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—My question is in a way related to the question raised by the honourable member for Bonython. As you are aware, members have Internet access in their offices at Parliament House. However, when they return to their electorate offices, in the main they cannot respond to the e-mail messages that frequently hit their computers. You, for one, Mr Speaker, have encouraged the use of technology in this place but our inability to reply—to almost rudely fail to respond—to these messages leaves us very poorly placed. Those who have Internet access in their electorate offices have a receive facility only, which makes it doubly frustrating. Could you review the present situation—and I understand that cost is part of the problem—and advise the House and members when relief from this situation may be available?2815Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I share the honourable gentleman's concern. It is one of the questions I thought I might raise at the committee of which the honourable member for Bonython is a member when we meet in that first week. I take on board the question and will see what can be done. Like you, I feel it is unacceptable that we do not have an outward connection through Internet.Miscellaneous28152815Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present a report from KPMG, the internal auditor of the Department of the House of Representatives, on that firm's audit of members' travelling allowances for the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997. The report follows a progress report relating to the 1995-96 period tabled by Speaker Halverson on 18 November 1997. The auditor has concluded:The overwhelming majority of travelling allowance records are fully supported by independently collected travel records of flight information, car hire, taxi hire and fuel purchases.Twenty-two thousand, two hundred and eighteen travelling allowance records for members and former members were matched against travel records held by the former Department of Administrative Services and other travel records. As part of this process, members and former members have been approached by the auditors not because of perceived errors in their claims but pursuant to the normal audit process.As at 3 April 1998, 22,205 records or 99.9 per cent were reconciled, leaving 13 outstanding. These remaining records were unable to be reconciled because information was not available from a member and former members. Two hundred and eighteen travelling allowance records or 0.98 per cent were found to be in error, of which 168 were overpayments and 50 were underpayments. It is currently anticipated that net recoveries arising from the audit will total $20,825. This amount represents 0.62 per cent of total expenditure on travel allowances by the Department of the House of Representatives for the two years 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997.The outcome of the audit confirms the overall integrity of members and the Department of House of Representatives in the processing of travel entitlements.Auditor-General's Reports281510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 39 for 1997-98 entitled Performance audit—Management of selected junctions of the Child Support Agency . Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 39 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.Documents28162816Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Report—The 1996 federal election: Inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election and matters related thereto—Government response.Endangered Species Protection Act—1998 review—Report by Dr N. Keith Boardman.Statement by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and summary of recommendations and government's preliminary response.Environment, Recreation and the Arts—Standing Committee—Report, October 1996—Managing Australia's World Heritage—Government response, April 1998.Statement by Senator Hill (Minister for the Environment), April 1998.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—Health Insurance Commission—Report for 1996-97.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report, October 1997—Sharpening the focus: Seminar on the Simons Committee report, 11 July 1997—Government response.National Common Police Services—Australasian Police Ministers' Council—Report for 1996-97.Motion (by Mr Truss) proposed:That the House take note of the following government response: Sharpening the focus , a report of a seminar on the Simons committee report.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report, October 1997—Sharpening the focus: Seminar on the Simons Committee report, 11 July 1997—Government response.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. Matters of Public Importance2816281610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The mass sackings on Australia's waterfront.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—17:13:002816Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The elaborate pretence which has been built up around waterfront policy by this government over the past few months has finally, last night, been stripped away: the clear purpose of the government's policy all along has been to engineer the mass sackings of the 1,400 or so workers who were employed until last night by Patrick Stevedores. The months of lies, evasions and deceptions and the months of Peter Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, standing up in this place and saying, `We do not know anything about this; we support competition, we support reform, but we do not know anything about this,' are now stripped away. We now see the government's position, their actions, their strategy, their orchestration of all this very clearly, nakedly before us.The pattern has been thus: consultancies to the tune of $1.3 million funded by the Australian taxpayer have been kept secret in spite of Senate resolutions and freedom of information action—consultancies that set forward the strategy for the government to go about sacking 1,400 Australian workers who were simply doing their jobs. Tied up with this was, first, the mad Dubai escapade where we had serving Australian soldiers being taken to the Middle East with the involvement of a foreign government to be trained to take the existing jobs of Australian workers who were not on strike, who were not breaking the law, who were going about their lawful business. That, last night, is precisely what happened. Most of the people who were in Dubai have now been further trained and taken on board by the NFF and are now in the process of replacing the workers who have been sacked. Precisely what Dubai was about is now coming to pass.Stage 2 was the National Farmers Federation and the introduction of so-called competition. We had the third entrant against Patrick Stevedores and against P&O, the new competitor at Webb Dock. What a load of absolute nonsense that was! All along—as we discovered last night and as the world discovered last night, and as has confirmed the opposition's analysis of what is happening—this was about training an alternative work force to replace the existing Patrick's workers. The government said that it did not know anything about Dubai—it was completely ignorant; it had nothing to do with it—yet it was advertised in the official Army newspaper. The investor who was behind it—the boss of Patrick's, Chris Corrigan—was at the same time in discussions both with the National Farmers Federation about the Webb Dock operation and with the government about sacking its entire work force.A minute of 10 March 1997 from the industrial relations department to the minister by an officer called Derren Gillespie set out the strategy. It referred to the holus-bolus dismissal of the entire work force and it said, as it gave the real game away, the two stevedoring companies were not really up to speed on this yet; they were not fully committed to this sort of idea and it was obvious that they had to handle them carefully. In other words, this was the government's idea; from day one this was the government's strategy.We are told that the NFF was being introduced for competition. We were told, `What have you got against competition? Here it is in the Labor party platform adopted in Hobart. You support competition and yet you oppose the NFF.' What did we say? We said the NFF operation was not a serious competitor, it was not a new entrant into stevedoring, and that was proved to be 100 per cent correct last night. That is what the outcome of last night's exercise was. The NFF operation was never intended to be anything other than a device for training a replacement work force for Patrick's.That is why their notional competitor, Mr Corrigan, embraced them with open arms, leased his own land to them, at the same time as he was fighting tooth and nail in the Supreme Court of Victoria to keep a real, genuine competitor out—OOCL. At the same time as he is embracing the NFF and saying, `Yes, this is a wonderful, new competitor that we are happy to have here competing with us in the port of Melbourne,' he is going through substantial legal proceedings to keep a real stevedoring company, OOCL, out. Of course, the truth of all this was revealed in all its ugliness, in all its mendacity and in all its viciousness last night.There have been a number of references in this debate to the pilots dispute in 1989. I think there are a couple of critical differences and the emphasis has got to be put on these distinctions. I should add that I, as a trade union official, was not a supporter at the time of the use of the military in that dispute. But let us look at the key differences. Firstly, the pilots resigned. No pilots were sacked. No government money or taxpayers' money was given to the airlines to fund the sackings of the pilots. They resigned and, immediately after they resigned, the military was put into use.Secondly and most importantly, the pilots were the aggressors in the dispute. It was the pilots who challenged the wage fixing system and it was the government that reacted to that. Rightly or wrongly, the government was reacting to the actions of the pilots; it was responding to a perceived threat to the wage fixing system at the time and was pursuing the national interest when you had a withdrawal of services that was having a devastating effect on many Australians and many Australian businesses. Those two differences are critical, and of course the position adopted by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business at the time on that issue was a little bit different from the position that he is now adopting—just a minor thing to add.We have seen in the past few months an outrageous pattern of slander, vilification and lies directed at a relatively small number of Australian workers, and just think of some of the examples. This has been coming up from all the mad right-wingers and all the people out there under rocks who have been waiting for years for this, all of the people—the extremists in parts of the NFF and elsewhere—who have been stewing over this. They have had a desire for revenge, a desire to hit the wharfies, for decades and now, finally, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has given them that opportunity. So you see these great letters in the paper about what some wharfies allegedly did in 1942, as if that in some way is the responsibility of an existing waterside worker. The same people who push this line, of course, say of what people did to the Aborigines back in that period, `Nobody today bears any responsibility for that,' but today's wharfies, some of whom were not alive then, have to carry the can for these alleged outrages perpetrated by people most of whom are probably dead.Then we had the great Fremantle lie, the three shifts: the first shift only six or seven boxes an hour, the second about 14 or 15, and the third a world record at 30 because they were allegedly going off to see a strip show. The truth was on the first shift they had substantial mechanical breakdown; an automatic spreader broke down which meant that they could not do the job. On the second shift the boxes were in odd places; they had to shift two or three containers to get to an individual box, the end result being an ordinary one. On the final shift the containers were all there—one by one—ready just to be taken off very quickly. That is what they did. That is why there was a very high productivity on that. There are two of them and on the way out one of them comments jocularly to the supervisor, `We're going off to a stripshow.' The end result is that you get the minister for workplace relations up here bucketing them and vilifying them on the basis of total nonsense.The Prime Minister has used a similar example which, after three questions on notice, he has refused to defend and substantiate. That is the allegation that for years wharfies have let perishable products rot on the wharves as a result of industrial disputes. That is a lie. Routinely, perishable products are exempt from industrial disputation and have been so for many years. I have given the Prime Minister three opportunities to substantiate that claim and three times he has failed to do so. That is just one example of the outrageous vilifications and slanders that have been heaped on this group of Australian workers.The government is now putting up a new tax—breaking its promise of no new taxes yet again—for $250 million to pay Patrick's to sack people at the same time as Patrick's have been asset stripping, shifting the assets out of Patrick's back into Lang Corporation, so that the government can then fund what Patrick's themselves should be funding. The government is not only orchestrating the dismissal of these workers; it is actually paying for these workers to be dismissed. It is paying Patrick's to do it. It is virtually bribing Patrick's to do it to pursue its agenda.All of the debate, all of the vilification and all of the propaganda have been about one or two ports, but in the smaller ports there are people today who do not have a job. There are people in Townsville who do not have a job. There are people in Burnie who do not have a job. There are people in Port Kembla and Bell Bay who do not have a job. No evidence whatsoever is put against these people. No argument whatsoever is put against them in terms of their productivity and industrial disputation—nothing. The only reason these people are being dismissed, in contravention of the minister's own legislation and his rhetoric, is that they are members of the Maritime Union of Australia who happen to work for Patrick Stevedores. That is the only reason. They have been given no redress, no warning, no individual performance assessment that says you are not doing a good job as an individual.The Liberal Party, the great Liberal Party of Sir Robert Menzies, the great defender of the individual, is here engaged in the most outrageous Stalinist attack on a group of people that has been seen in this country's recent history. A whole group of people, 1,400 people, have been sacked because of their characteristics—because they happen to be members of a particular union and because they happen to work for a particular company—with no consideration of their individual performance and their individual characteristics. We have got, in addition to that, the users of the highly productive, highly efficient Sealand in Adelaide, which is a small port and gets very good crane rates in spite of the fact that it is a small port, have to pay for the sacking of people in other states. So there is going to be a levy attached to the fees that are paid by users in Adelaide that is going to be used to sack workers in other states.All of this indicates what this government is really about. This is a stage in a gradual process of turning the clock back to before the Great Depression. This is to go back to the dog collar act. This is to go back to the master and servant relationship of the 19th century. This is to go back to the situation where all you had was individual contracts. You suggest that there is choice. What choice did these people have? What choice was there for the people in ports like Townsville and Burnie, who have not been on strike for years, who are perfectly productive and reasonable within the framework of equipment and tasks they are required to do? What choice did they have? The only choice they have exercised has been to belong to the Maritime Union, and that is why they are sacked. And this government claims it supports competition.The Minister for Workplace Relations lambasted me and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) for not supporting the NFF, because that was new competition. The facade that that involved has been stripped away; the lie that was inherent in that proposition has been torn away. The NFF was never about setting up a new stevedoring operation. It was about training a replacement work force so that a whole lot of ordinary Australian workers could be sacked. In Dampier recently the state government, with the support of the federal government, locked out a competitor. It set up a monopoly with non-MUA involvement and locked out P&O from being able to complete. So much for the government's support for competition. They do not support competition. What they support is non-union labour. What they support is individual bargaining. What they support is preventing workers from bargaining collectively and balancing the bargaining power against powerful, large employers with lots of money. That is the real agenda, and bit by bit it is coming out.The issue of productivity is interesting to consider. Contrary to the allegations of the minister, productivity did rise very substantially on all measures as a result of the WIRA process. Crane rates were up over 50 per cent, terminal charges were down 25 per cent, ship turnaround times were reduced by 45 per cent and various other measures all showed substantial improvement. In some instances further improvement is required, but the bottom line question in all of this is an ends and means question. There are lots of parts of the Australian economy that are not perfect. There are lots of people who are not as productive as perhaps they might be. There are lots of groups of workers and lots of groups of mates of the Liberal Party who perhaps could be a little bit more productive. The real question is, how do you go about getting people to be more productive?There is a debate about productivity on the waterfront. We will hear more outrage and vilification and slander from government speakers in this debate today, no doubt. But the real issue in this debate is what is an appropriate way to go about getting improvements in these things. Is the appropriate way to massively vilify people as a group, to scapegoat them, to hold them up to public ridicule to a point where these people who have been sacked are going to find it very hard to get new jobs; and then, using public money, using all of the strength of government, to bribe their employer to sack them en masse simply because they are union members seeking to bargain collectively, and to tax exporters, the people they say all this is for the benefit of, in order to pay for that amount of money?Tonight you have got 1,400 people who are suddenly without a job; 1,400 people who have got to worry about mortgages in most instances, about dependants they have got to feed and about children they have got to look after. They no longer have a job. Not only that, they are going to have significant diffi culties in many cases in finding a new job because Peter Reith and others in the government have spent the last few months telling the whole world what a bunch of bludgers, what a bunch of rorters, they all are—with no substance to those claims, with no effort to treat people as individuals and to judge individual ports, individual performance by different people, by different workers and different arms of Patrick. The end result is an outrageous black day for the Liberal Party in particular. You would expect this sort of stuff from the National Party but, for a Liberal Party committed to the individual, it is an outrage. (Time expired)17:28:002820Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—`Outrageous black day'! Let me give this house some evidence of an outrageous black day. This is the second time in two weeks I have had to rise in this place to identify the arrant hypocrisy, the double standards and the lack of credibility of the present Labor Party opposition. Recorded history is my proof of that. Last week I reported remarks of the Labor PM Mr Hawke when he defended his Treasurer, Paul Keating, for failing to lodge two tax returns. The Prime Minister at the time said that it was an honest mistake. But, of course, when the Labor Party came to attack the present Prime Minister over his position on a research centre, it was not an honest mistake. You can rewrite the rule book whenever you like. I also drew to the attention of the House the fact that members of that Labor cabinet sat in secret consideration of the Bell takeover of BHP when in fact a company, Industrial Printing and Publicity, of which the ALP was a shareholder, also held 58,000 BHP shares, and the mother of one of the ministers present had a very substantial holding in Bell, the takeover applicant.The member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) tried to rationalise the issue of the pilots strike. If ever there was a black day for the Labor Party, it was the day when they destroyed a union. The Australian Federation of Airline Pilots was a union. It was registered with the ACTU. In 1989 that association called upon its members to applying work bans—not a strike at that time but work bans.The airline industry, nevertheless, was fraught with bad work practices: it paid high wages to the people concerned—or some of them; not to a lot of the guys pushing the little planes around in general aviation—and, for some, there were very low hours worked. You can see all the similarities. Their record of industrial action was not the best either. But the Hawke Labor government, in association with the then Prime Minister's close friend and witness to an agreement—you might remember that little bit of hypocrisy when the then Prime Minister and his Treasurer met at Kirribilli House to divvy up the prime ministership; the witness that the Prime Minister chose was Sir Peter Abeles, who of course was the chief executive of Ansett—turned on the pilots with a vengeance. The pilots were forced to resign. The member for Melbourne wants us to believe that they resigned and then the Labor government took revenge on them. But let us see what the pilots actually said in a publication they put out at the time:The Companies took out writs against individual pilots resulting in all pilots taking legal advice to resign to protect their families, homes and superannuation.These were common law writs: if you do not go back to work, we are going to take your superannuation off you; we are going to take your house off you. And the opposition are crying crocodile tears in here about what they say is happening now, when this government is ensuring that the redundancy and superannuation rights of all these people, whom I will refer to shortly, are properly protected. What else did the pilots say in that publication? They said:The companies, with the full backing of the government and the ACTU persisted with only one tactic in this dispute; to attempt to destroy the AFAP. This included:. Serving common law writs against individual pilots following union work bans.Has that been done by this government in this case? It continues:. Application to the IRC to cancel pilot awards.Has that been done by this government? Has there been any attempt to cancel the award? It continues:. Shutting down the airline system.We have not shut down the ports. It continues:. Threatening pilots termination benefits and superannuation.Has this government done that? No, it has done the reverse. The publication continues:. The use of the Air Force and foreign carriers.I see the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has come in; he would well remember all this and, no doubt, was in close contact with the ACTU at the time. What did the then Prime Minister say in regard to that? The Sydney Morning Herald of 22 August 1989, quoted Mr Hawke saying of the pilots:"If they want war then there will be war and we won't be losing it," . . . "If it means shutting down the system for x number of weeks then it will be shut down."We all know the damage that that little statement did to the Australian tourism industry. Is that what this government is doing? No, this government is getting an orderly transition to keep the ships moving. The pilots publication continues:. The import of foreign labour.Are we bringing people in? Yes, I will admit that somebody organised to send some workers to Dubai to be trained—and it is an indictment of Australia and the MUA that you had to send anybody out of the country to have them trained in anything. It continues:. The advertising of pilots jobs around the world.Have we gone to Malaysia and Singapore and advertised for wharfies? No, we are making the opportunities through the law for the training of good Australians. It continues:. Government use of $100 million of tax payers money to support the airlines, thus prolonging the dispute.This is a good one because the member for Melbourne said, `Of course we didn't spend any taxpayers money.' They actually paid them to keep the men out of a job. What is the difference? By the way, we are not spending taxpayers' money; we are arranging for a body to borrow money. It will be paid back, including interest, by the industry at no charge to the consumers. The taxpayer paid $100 million so Bob Hawke, Peter Abeles and this Labor Party could destroy a union and destroy jobs.We had the Leader of the Opposition crying crocodile tears about people who might not be able to pay off their mortgage. This was a proposal, through personal writs, to take people's houses off them—and their superannuation as well. This included the use of writs inhibiting pilots and the media from discussing air safety issues associated with the dispute; they actually prevented pilots from warning people that their life might be at risk. The publication continues:. Psychological warfare including threatening letters and misinformation.. Rejection of genuine efforts to resolve the dispute.. Rejection of any third party involvement in talks . . . That was the history of the pilots dispute, and that was the disgraceful involvement of this opposition that stands up today and tries to compare that with what this government has done and how the MUA have behaved. I just found it quite ridiculous that the member for Melbourne said, `The NFF's P&O operation is not going to be a waterfront operation; it is not going to be a stevedoring operation.' Of course it is, they are contracting to Patrick's; they are active stevedores. It is Patrick's that is drawing back.But let us look at that too because we are talking about all these people being sacked. Some of them are in Burnie. They are so worried about Burnie. One of the biggest employers in Burnie is of course Caterpillar Elphinstone, which makes underground mining equipment—the biggest manufacturer in Australia. They are sacking people too. They are sacking them for a number of reasons. One of them is that the Native Title Act, which these people will not have properly amended, is in fact delaying mining development and jobs in Burnie. But the opposition is only worried about the wharfies. That is the truth. But the reality is also that, while you have got this ridiculous waterfront situation, they of course are also being denied the opportunity to export to some of the expanding mining companies in other parts of the world. They are the third biggest manufactur er of underground mining machinery in the world. That is just silly and, of course, Labor is trying to rewrite history.Let us get down to these people who have lost their jobs. That is now being blamed on Patrick's. Because Patrick's had the temerity to grant some unnecessary wharf space to someone who had the courage to train some additional workers whom they could hire, the MUA took them on with one intention and one intention only: to send them broke—and, with very carefully selected strikes in one place after another, with this crowd on the other side cheering them on, they have succeeded.The company has no money to go on; it does not have enough money to pay that redundancy—and that was admitted by Mr Corrigan this morning. In fact, if the government had not intervened at this time to put up that funding, the reality is that you would have another Cobar mine. They deliberately sent the operation broke by very selective strike action and, of course, all the other things they have done. The reality is that now they are crying crocodile tears for what they say were the good guys. It is a pity that Mr Coombs of the MUA did not get off his wine property for a while and attend to the real concerns of those people and negotiate a proper arrangement.The sort of stuff we get in this debate! Day after day we have had people telling us that of course the poor old wharfies could not be efficient, they had all this broken down equipment. The minister brought it to our attention yesterday: all that equipment has been brand new at this some point in time, and a lot of it at Patrick's was quite modern. But what did they do? Who had the responsibility—and the sole responsibility—for maintaining it? The MUA. The only people who were allowed to go near it with a spanner or a grease gun were the MUA. They could not even look after their own equipment; they could not even protect their own safety.What did we discover when the NFF went onto Webb Dock? They found in the Corrigan books that the maintenance of that equipment was costing over $3 million a year in wages and such going to the MUA. There is the girl who went down there to be trained and who has told us as a journalist—and you would expect that they were going to stir things up—how excellent the training has been, and how pleased she will be as a journalist to have the chance to earn, as a woman, $50,000 a year. She said a couple of times, `Oh, I was doing my training and the equipment stopped.'But the NFF now has had some outside contractors in. The equipment is not stopping any more, it is working perfectly—as it will in Port Botany and as it will in Darling Harbour as they move in. And they have outsourced maintenance, and the equipment will be safer for the people who operate it. But what was the cost at Webb Dock? It went from $3 million down to $400,000 a year—and for a better job.Those opposite stand up and say what is good for the country and cry crocodile tears for the 1,400 men who have lost their jobs. How many of Australia's million unemployed have been out of a job because those people have made our people inefficient—how many? What is the social cost of those people's greed and arrogance? And `arrogance' is the word, with 1,400 people demanding a job that should be done by 500.But, worse, they have driven every efficient shipping company from Australia's shores. I advised the House the other day how a working factory in Western Australia closed because it could not export its manufactured goods into the Asian region and be competitive, notwithstanding that it had the orders. It was not its local manufactured costs; it was the fact that it could not get the right shipping rate that was available to its Asian competitors. When that factory contacted those companies, they said, `We wouldn't be seen dead in Australia; we don't go there.'In fact, on the figures given to us by P&O the other day, if you want to get a container shifted from California to Tokyo, it will cost you half as much as getting the same container from the east coast of Australia to Tokyo, which is the same distance. Why? Because they treat us as a war zone; that is how they price us. As one leading shipping fellow said to me years ago, when that was being published in the paper, `Yes, it's true.' He went on, `In a war zone, we might lose a ship from time to time; in Australia, we never know when we are going to get them back.' Do not tell me they do not put a premium on for that—and who pays it?That van Extel girl this morning on the silly ABC was leading people to say that farmers should not be worried about the waterfront; they should be back looking after their livestock in the drought. I can tell you this: if your sheep are starving and the price of wool has dropped a dollar a kilo, $500 a container on the freight might be your profit. Of course they should take this interest, and they should be congratulated for it. But this Labor Party have no credibility. They dealt with the pilots with a steel fist. Their present leader, Mr Beazley, was referred to in the Australian of 24 August as follows:The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley—the guy who provided the planes—said the air force was ready and able to provide a `substantial airlift capacity' . . . He was up to here with it—and he comes in whingeing today, worried about other people's job. And what did they do at the end of it? They had a party, and they invited the media to join them on their last Hercules flight out of Canberra. They celebrated the death of a union—that is what they did—and they have no credibility on this issue at all. In fact, if this building were not so solid, lightning would strike you dead. (Time expired)17:43:002823McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Since this debate began, a very important new element in this debate has arisen. Since this debate began, the Federal Court has issued an injunction for seven days to prevent Patrick's dismissing their employees. The Federal Court has said that for seven days Patrick's may not pursue—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—You hate to perform, don't you?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I hate the sacking of workers. They say no termination of employees, no divestment of assets, no hiring of new labour, for seven days. Why did they do that? With all the planning this government have done, with all the time they have had, with all the resources they have applied, they could not get it right for 24 hours. Even when they are acting in the most unreasonable manner, they cannot be competent. It was wrong in principle; it is wrong in practice. The Federal Court has found that there is a very reasonable case to argue that they have acted illegally; that not only is the act under which they are operating unfair, but they have not even acted in accordance with that act. This is not a decision that the Federal Court would have made lightly.Think about the situation in which the judge found himself. He was aware that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was in here congratulating the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) this morning on this great victory, that he had created the justification for sacking 1,400 Australians. But the Federal Court within 24 hours has said, `This outrageous line of action by the government falls at the first hurdle.' The Federal Court has issued an interim injunction. What does that interim injunction do? It stops them sacking 1,400 Australians, and yes I am very pleased about that. We on the opposition side are all very pleased about that. It means that for Easter there are 1,400 families who know that at least for that period they have a job.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is a top result.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It is an excellent result for working people. It says, `If the government will not stand up in defence of the rights of Australian workers'—and it is clear that they will not—`you still have a chance in the courts.' We found today that you do not have a chance in the parliament. You cannot even debate issues about the attack on workers' rights. I think I know why. Because the only place where there has been a debate—the Senate—carried a resolution condemning the recklessness of the Howard government in inciting industrial conflict on the waterfront and inflicting unnecessary hardship on thousands of Australian workers and their families.What have we got here? The Senate, with the support of the minor parties—not just the Labor Party—had a debate in which it found against the government. In the Federal Court, where the matter was heard, where argument was put, the judge has said, `Do not sack these workers. Do not strip your assets.' I wonder why they found it necessary to say that. `Do not hire new labour. Keep the situation for a week because it is a very arguable case from the MUA that this action by Patricks is not in accordance with the law.' Whose law is it not in accordance with?The Prime Minister said that he would support Patricks to the hilt provided they act within the law. We want him to answer the question he would not answer at question time. In the light of this Federal Court decision, will he guarantee that no money will be paid to Patricks should those dismissals be found to be in breach of the awards and the agreements in the Workplace Relations Act? We do not want that money released to bankroll these dismissals. Now we have the Federal Court saying, `Stop.' We want to be reassured that there will be no money released.The Prime Minister should come in here and give a guarantee through the parliament to the Australian people that there will be no support for these decisions if they are found to be unlawful. He said, `We will support it provided they act within the law.' The Federal Court has said, `At the very least there is grave doubt about that. Do not start spending this money. Do not proceed any further with this law. Let us wait to see whether the final consideration is as we thought it would be,' and as we asked the Prime Minister today.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—We believe in leadership, not in waiting and waiting and waiting.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Leadership means acting competently in accordance with the law of the country. We do not live in a dictatorship where a leader is entitled to act in conflict with the law.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He is not above the law.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—The Prime Minister is not above the law, but he is beneath decent standards. What this set of decisions and this set of actions by the government makes crystal clear is that, while there has been a clear finding of at least grave doubt about whether Patricks has acted legally, the government should say, `Stop.' They should make sure that their own processes do not allow the continuation of this arguably unlawful act, and they should start answering the questions we asked them today. We asked, `Prime Minister, are you aware that the Workplace Relations Act requires that no employee be sacked because they are a union member? Are you aware that any employer proposing to sack more than 15 employees has certain obligations imposed upon them under the Workplace Relations Act and there is no evidence that those have been met?'The Federal Court certainly was not persuaded that those reasonable requirements of the court have been met. The Federal Court said, `At the very least, we have a number of arguable propositions.' We will find out in full, when the argument from the Federal Court is heard, what its view is, but there is certainly an arguable proposition that these dismissals are unlawful. There is clearly an argument on the most simple reading of the Workplace Relations Act that these arguments are unfair, harsh, unjust and unreasonable in the terms of whose law? Peter Reith's law. The law that this government brought in and celebrated, they cannot even comply with. They are backing unlawful actions; actions that appear to be quite clearly in breach of their own law. Did they bother in any way today to respond to our legitimate questions as to whether they would give a guarantee that no money would be paid should those dismissals be found to be in breach of the Workplace Relations Act? Not one indication of concern. Did they respond positively when we said, `Are you aware of these provisions of the act and of the legally binding award that puts certain requirements on employers which they have breached?'Was there any concern by the Prime Minister? Did he give even the smallest indication of recognition that his commitment that he would support Patricks to the hilt, provided they act within the law, had not been met? He gave none. Did the minister for workplace relations show any consideration and concern? None. All they were doing was opening the champagne because they had got 1,400 Australians sacked two days before Easter.There are clearly a number of breaches of the Workplace Relations Act. The Federal Court has said to this government, `Do not go down this path any further.' There cannot be a clearer red light to a government than this, saying that the action it is taking is unreasonable, unfair and potentially unlawful, and this government is supporting such action. It is a totally unreasonable situation to celebrate the sacking of 1,400 law-abiding Australians, but to do it in breach of the law is to be condemned. (Time expired)17:53:002825Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—The ALP is finally out of the black box. We have been talking in this place month after month about waterfront reform. Why? Because we have Jurassic Park in Melbourne, in Sydney, in Adelaide, in Brisbane and in Perth. The Australian Labor Party does not want to talk about it. At two o'clock today, the grand old ALP came out of the box and decided to talk about waterfront reform. Why? Because Patricks sacked their work force.The member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), who has just exited the chamber after that little stunt, forgot to tell the House that this seven-day injunction is not against Patricks; it is against the companies in liquidation only, and I am advised that it is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. It is all a bit of a fraud perpetrated on this House by the member for Canberra in the middle of a debate about waterfront reform.What is this issue really all about? It is about competition—the fact that we do not have any. Why do we not have competition on the waterfront? I will tell you why: we have a monopoly supply of labour. I think that almost every citizen in this country understands what a monopoly is—it is a single source of supply. That is what the Maritime Union of Australia is. It is a single source of supply of labour to the waterfront. There is no competition.Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, relating to freedom of association, states the object of the part in division 1—preliminary—section 298A. It states:As well as the objects set out in section 3, this Part has these objects:(a) to ensure that employers, employees and independent contractors are free to join industrial associations of their choice or not to join industrial associations; and(b) to ensure that employers, employees and independent contractors are not discriminated against or victimised because they are, or are not, members or officers of industrial associations.It is clear. All this government has done in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 is do what I have argued for many years should be done—that is, put in the law true freedom of association. So they are giving individuals not only the right to belong but also the right not to belong. But you cannot get a job on the waterfront if you do not have an MUA ticket. They will not let you through the gate. The only way that we are going to remove that monopoly power of the MUA—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Monopoly power?OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—That monopoly power which costs every Australian citizen hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year in lost productivity, in higher costs and in lost opportunity and thousands upon thousands of jobs. The only way we are going to fix that is to get some competition.The member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) gave the most pathetic MPI lead speech I have heard in this place for a long, long time. He was about as enthusiastic as a wet blessed noodle. He said, `You, the Liberal Party, should treat people as individuals.' That is exactly what the Workplace Relations Act 1996 was intended to do. It is to treat people as individuals, not as collectives. The MUA is a collective. It is a single source, monopolistic collective to the detriment of performance on the waterfront.So what do you do about it? Then came Patricks Stevedoring. Finally, there is a company with the guts, the legislative action and the legal sanctions to take some action to get some improvement. I can tell you that, except for this Jurassic Park Labor Party mob sitting over there, on a few little cross benches that they occupy, the rest of Australia is applauding Patricks for finally having the guts to do something about reform of the water front. It is paying people decent wages, offering them decent conditions and giving them safe work practices and workplaces in order to do a job that needs to be done.I tell you what: winning international awards year after year for poor performance does absolutely nothing for Australia's international reputation. Not only that, it also does nothing for our cost structure as a trading nation. That point needs to be made strongly over and over again. With the exception of the coal industry, which we still have a bit of a problem with, and the building construction industry, which could open up their work sites to individuals who do not want to belong to a trade union—we need some improvement on that front—the rest of Australian industry have democracy in their workplaces.The important point that I make is that we are giving individuals choice. But this mob over there somehow expects us to believe that retaining the MUA as a single source of labour on the docks, on the wharves, in Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth is for the good of all Australia. The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) had a few words to say about this. I believe he launched his book today; it is well and truly launched. The member for Werriwa says:The politics of nostalgia offers nothing more than a chimera of false comfort and expectations.Well said. That is so applicable to this waterfront problem that we have. I hesitate to talk about a `dispute' because I understand the workers have been sacked, so how could there be a dispute? I could be wrong because there is some uncertainty about the effect of this injunction. The member for Werriwa also went on to say:There is something frightfully immoral about those in public life who know full well that the past is undeliverable yet because the electorate sometimes seeks shelter from insecurity by reviving impressions of how society used to be—what Jurassic Park used to be—they still proceed to throw back to the policies of the past and hold out false hope for the way in which nostalgia might somehow resolve the problems of the present.That is what we have. We have on the wharves in Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth work practices that date back to the earlier part of this century. We have over-manning, we have rorts, we have practices which are out of kilter with mainstream Australia.The wharfies come up and campaign against me in my electorate. We do not have a drop of water, except for a couple of reservoirs and one creek. Outside of that we do not have any water. We have heaps of trees everywhere, but we have the waterside workers in favour of the Australian Labor Party coming to my electorate to campaign against me. Why don't they spend their time doing something productive on the wharves and shifting a few containers? That might be a good idea, might it not, instead of nicking off, going slow and not doing anything until the overtime shift comes so that they can be paid double, triple and quadruple? That is not fair to other Australians. The member for Werriwa went on:The cause of Labor is never weaker than when the Party has nothing more progressive to offer the electorate than a revival of ideas long past.He said it well again, and it is so applicable to this MPI today. May I say that the member for Melbourne, who proposed this matter of public importance, `the mass sackings on Australia's waterfront', came in here like a wet noodle, a limp piece of spaghetti, offered some implausible statement about sackings of the poor workers on the waterfront and disappeared from the chamber. It was a matter of such public importance he could not even stay to hear the debate. The member for Melbourne is nothing more than a joke to bring this issue in front of the parliament. He ought to have known better.(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.Special Adjournment2826Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 12 May 1998, at 2.00 p.m., unless otherwise called together by the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, by the Deputy Speaker. Leave of Absence2827Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Ministerial Arrangements2827Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That standing orders 48A, adjournment and next meeting, and 103, new business be suspended for this sitting.Committees282728272827Motion (by Ms Worth, for Mr Reith) agreed to:(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.2827282718:05:002827Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—On behalf of the Minister for Finance and Administration, I 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.The Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, located at Pinjarra Hills, Queensland, was established by an agreement between the Queensland government and the CSIRO with the objective of developing a world centre of excellence to expand and diversify research and development in the mining, energy and related manufacturing industries in this state and the country as a whole. The centre aims to bring together resources from the state government, universities, kindred CSIRO divisions, Queensland and Australia wide minerals, energy and manufacturing industries in collaborative activities.Currently the occupancy across the whole complex greatly exceeds the original planned complement and has led to an acute shortage of space and a demand for additional facilities. New initiatives and increased interest from the commercial collaborators will further exacerbate the accommodation problems in the foreseeable future. In order to redress these accommodation problems, CSIRO proposes a building development program which will significantly expand the existing facilities and, in addition, permit rationalisation of some of the existing resources.The proposed development comprises a research building housing lightly serviced laboratories, offices and open work areas; a technology transfer building providing office style accommodation for a number of independent rental suites; a number of new industrial type buildings; expansion of the existing library and canteen facilities; minor alterations to existing buildings to suit change of function; site works, including new roads, car parking and environmental rehabilitation; extension and modifications to site services; and relocation and modification of the existing sewage treatment plant. The estimated out turn cost is $22.3 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence in early 1999 and be completed by mid-2000. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.2828282818:09:002828Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—On behalf of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), I 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.The Department of Defence proposes to complete a major redevelopment at HMAS Albatross . The redevelopment will provide modern functional facilities that will improve operational reliability and organisational functionality. The project will include facilities to support the introduction into service of the new Sea Sprite helicopter. The proposal will provide maintenance and storage hangers for Sea Sprite and Seahawk helicopters, shelters for fixed-wing fleet support aircraft, air traffic control facilities, explosive ordnance storage facilities, replacement airfield lighting, photographic centre, a training complex, and engineering services and civil works. The estimated turn out cost is $69.3 million. It is anticipated that the design development will start in June 1998 and construction will be completed by July 2000. The Public Works Committee report tabled on 25 March 1998 recommended that the work proceed. Defence accepts and will implement the recommendations of the committee. The minister would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents282818:11:002828Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What is that? Do we have a spare copy of that?8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I have an additional government document which was not available when earlier documents were tabled. I now present a copy of the UNESCO General Conference, 29th session, Australian delegation report.Bills2828r5072828GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—The Attorney's not here, so let's go to No. 11 on the Daily Program.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Can't get your business in order. That's because human rights is off your agenda, is it?RH4KERRMr Kerr—You just want to sack the people in Launceston.DT4CREANMr Crean—You sacked workers at Burnie and Devonport. How many of those in your electorate? Why don't you get up and say something about them?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—Why don't you sit down?DT4CREANMr Crean—Why don't you shut up?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—You're nothing but a motormouth.DT4CREANMr Crean—You're a ventriloquist's dummy.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the member for Hotham to withdraw that.DT4CREANMr Crean—Withdraw what? Ventriloquist's dummy?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—Why are you hurling around personal abuse at this time of the night? Why don't you withdraw?DT4CREANMr Crean—I am just stating the obvious, the truth.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The honourable minister has been offended by what the honourable member for Hotham has to say.DT4CREANMr Crean—If precious over there is so offended, I withdraw; but he knows it's true.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask both to desist.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—In the absence of the Attorney, I again move that the item be postponed to a later hour of this day.DT4CREANMr Crean—What sort of a sham is this?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They're postponing human rights; that's what they're doing.DT4CREANMr Crean—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a shambles. This is a government that would not allow a debate before on a very important issue. Why don't we move to that now? This is a government that cannot get its business in order and we have this dope of a minister coming to the table seeking an adjournment for some other minister. Where are they? Wasn't this the government—Mr Warwick Smith interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!DT4CREANMr Crean—I am still on the point of order.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Madam Deputy Speaker—Mr Warwick Smith interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will direct the House. You do not have to direct me on how to do it. I ask the minister to take his place. The member for Parramatta has a point of order. He was on his feet first. I ask the member for Hotham to take his seat.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—My point of order is a question to you. Is it in order to raise a point of order simply to vent one's spleen and reopen a debate which is no longer before the House?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. It is a fictitious point of order. There is an item of business before the chair. I understand that the Attorney-General is here now.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—We did this just to give you time, Daryl.DT4CREANMr Crean—Where have you been, Daryl?GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—Stop being a grub.Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Does that have anything to do with the right to belong to a union? Is there anything in there about a right to belong to a union?DT4CREANMr Crean—No, a right to be sacked if you do belong to one.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—You're a grub. You're a grub.DT4CREANMr Crean—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I take offence to what has just been said by the minister three times. I ask him to withdraw it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will ask the minister—GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—I withdraw—but you know it's true.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Ha, ha!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have called the clerk. The clerk has read the bill a first time. If you wish to participate in this procedure, well and good; you are entitled to stay in the House. If you do not wish to participate in the debate, you can leave the chamber. I call the Attorney-General.282918:15:002829Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is the result of a detailed examination by the government of the structure and operations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government's examination found that the current structure of the commission is inefficient and top heavy, and does not always operate in the best interests of the entire Australian community.The bill provides for the reorganisation of the commission's membership, which will comprise a president and three deputy presidents. The commission and its members will have a common responsibility to protect and promote human rights for all Australians. In order to maintain areas of expertise, each deputy president will also have responsibility for particular subject areas. One deputy president will be responsible for human rights and disability, one will be responsible for social justice and race, and one will be responsible for sex discrimination and equal opportunity.Most importantly, this bill will be the catalyst for a fundamental cultural change in the commission. The bill makes it clear that the new commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination, and to help them to understand their responsibility, as members of the Australian community, to respect other people's human rights.The bill also emphasises the commission's role to assist business and the community to avoid discrimination by issuing practical guidelines for that purpose. This refocusing of the commission's functions is reflected in its new name—the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.Consistent with this cultural change, the bill will make the commission's power to intervene in court proceedings which raise human rights issues conditional upon it first obtaining my approval. The bill provides very broad criteria for the granting of my approval, which will enable me to ensure that every intervention by the new commission is in the best interests of the Australian community as a whole.The bill also separates the Privacy Commissioner from the new Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission by creating a statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner. This provides the Privacy Commissioner with an opportunity to further increase the profile, and thus the effectiveness, of her work in promoting the protection of individual privacy across all sectors.The bill provides further evidence of this government's commitment to the effective and equitable protection of the human rights of all Australians. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2830r5132830Bill presented by Mr Warwick Smith, and read a first time.283018:19:002830Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.We have the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 as presented today. We have a proud record of free to air terrestrial television broadcasting in Australia. From its inception in the mid-1950s, through the introduction of colour television in 1975, we have built a world-class free to air system with both publicly funded and commercial broadcasters, with a substantial proportion of quality Australian content. However, as we approach the new millennium, we stand on the threshold of new and exciting broadcasting opportunities. The era of digital broadcasting has arrived, in which television becomes part of the digital revolution which is sweeping every aspect of our society.The digital television era provides a quantum leap in television technology. Viewers will have the option of viewing high definition pictures of startling clarity and with CD quality surround sound. But digital broadcasting offers much more than just better pictures and sound. It provides the capacity for the humble television set to become a central information point in every home. Users will no longer be limited to looking passively at a box in the corner of the house. Digital transmissions will enable a host of new information services, including interactive services, to be provided along with the main television programming.This government is committed to ensuring that all Australians are able enjoy the benefits of digital free to air broadcasting as we move into the next century. To achieve this we need to ensure that broadcasters have clear signposts along the road to digital television, and are able to embark on the risky conversion process with a degree of certainty about government policy.The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill takes the first steps towards this objective by setting in place the basic framework for the conversion of free to air terrestrial commercial and national broadcasters. The bill amends certain provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, and introduces a new schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act dealing with digital television broadcasting.The mechanism by which the digital conversion process will be implemented for broadcasters is through the formulation of television conversion schemes by the Australian Broadcasting Authority which must meet certain government objectives as set out in the bill. Under the scheme, commercial broadcasters will be required to submit to the ABA, for approval, implementation plans. National broadcasters are to submit such plans to the minister.This approach has been adopted to ensure that the government's objectives are clearly enshrined in the bill, but at the same time the ABA has some degree of flexibility in the administration of the fine detail of the provisions, given that digital broadcasting is still a new and developing science.The bill provides for the allocation of additional television channels to free to air broadcasters so that they can commence delivery of digital terrestrial television services. This is achieved by requiring transmitter licences to be issued for digital television broadcasts, through consequent amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1992. It is intended that these licences be issued free of charge having regard to the high initial costs that free to air television broadcasters will be required to meet in relation to digital conversion and simulcasting.Digital broadcasts will commence on 1 January 2001 in metropolitan areas and from that date in regional areas such that all areas have digital services by 1 January 2004. Broadcasters who do not meet these targets will be required to surrender their transmitter licences unless there are exceptional circumstances.Broadcasters will be required to simulcast the same programs in both the new digital channel and their current analog channel for a period of at least eight years from the commencement date. At the end of the simulcast period, the spectrum used for analog transmissions will be returned to the Commonwealth and will be available for reallocation for specified purposes through a price based mechanism. To ensure that broad casters primarily focus on providing high quality television services using the available transmission capacity, they will be required to transmit a specified minimum proportion of high definition television. Commercial broadcasters will not be allowed to provide multiple separate channels of programs or subscription television services. However, they will be able to provide limited enhanced programming.A review will be held as to whether the ABC and SBS will be able to offer multi-channelling for non-commercial programs which are consistent with their charters. The government will identify unused television channels which are not needed for the transition to digital broadcasting and make these available for allocation for datacasting services on a competitive basis. Broadcasters—both national and commercial—will not be able to apply for these channels but will be able to use any excess transmission capacity in their digital channels for datacasting services. However, they will pay a charge for doing so, set at a value which ensures a level playing field between broadcasters and datacasters. This charge is the subject of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998. No new commercial television broadcasting licences will be allowed before 2008, and whether these new licences should be allocated after that date will be the subject of a review in 2005.The needs of regional Australia have not been forgotten. In addition to the provision of additional time for the start-up period, the government will also review whether any amendments should be made to laws to ensure that underserved regional areas—that is, areas with fewer than three commercial services—are provided with the same number of television services as metropolitan areas. The government will also continue to support community broadcasters and will facilitate the transmission of community television broadcast services free of charge in conjunction with datacasting services.The bill also provides for closed captioning standards to be set in regulations, and the government's intention is that appropriate prime time services and non-prime time news and current affairs should be captioned. The bill establishes an access regime for access to transmission towers for the location of transmitters, or the sites on which such towers are located. However, the government recognises that access to transmission facilities may not always be possible for technical reasons, and thus the ABA will have the power to issue a certificate exempting a tower or site owner from complying where such access is not technically feasible.This bill shows once again the willingness of this government to take the lead in the global communications revolution. It provides a framework which will enable commercial and national free to air broadcasters to embark confidently in building the next generation of television services, which will be an important plank in Australia's development as an information economy. Australians have always been confident users of new technology. Only five years after television was first introduced in Sydney and Melbourne, around three-quarters of homes in these cities had television sets. More recently, we have witnessed the phenomenal growth in the use of technologies such as mobile phones and computers. I have no doubt that Australians will embrace the digital revolution in television with equal fervour. I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memoranda.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2832r5142832Bill presented by Mr Warwick Smith, and read a first time.283218:27:002832Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 provides for the imposition of a charge in relation to the provision of datacasting services by free to air television broadcasters. Part 6 of the proposed schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 provides for the collection of this charge. Part 6 is contained in schedule 1 to the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 .The government's policy on the conversion of national and commercial terrestrial television broadcasters from analog to digital transmission allows broadcasters to use any surplus transmission capacity remaining after meeting their obligations in regard to providing their main broadcasting services for datacasting purposes. The government has also announced that it will make available unused channels in the broadcasting spectrum bands for competitive price based allocation for datacasting services. This policy has the potential to place broadcasters at an advantage over those players who are successful in gaining datacasting channels. Under the government's digital conversion policy, broadcasters would be allocated their digital transmission channels free of up-front or ongoing charge. However, other datacasters would have to compete in the marketplace for their spectrum.To ensure a level playing field between broadcasters who offer datacasting services and other datacasters, the government will levy a charge on broadcasters for datacasting. This charge will be set at a level which will be competitively neutral when compared to the price paid by datacasters for competitively allocated channels. The amount of the charge will be determined in writing by the Australian Communications Authority. The Australian Broadcasting Authority will administer the scheme as a delegate of the Australian Communications Authority. I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2832r5112832Bill presented by Mr Ronaldson, and read a first time.283318:29:002833Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am pleased to be able to bring forward the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 , which contains a range of reforms to upgrade and revitalise the national road transport reform process, following a major review of the National Road Transport Commission. The bill will ensure that the significant task of national road transport reform can continue to be effectively carried out. It extends the sunset of the NRTC until 2004 and makes it, and the intergovernmental processes through which reform is pursued, more effective.The National Road Transport Commission Act 1991 was reviewed in late 1996 by a joint government-industry steering committee. The review drew on the lessons of the first six years of the NRTC and examined ways to improve the road transport reform process. The review recognised the significant economic benefits that will flow from the road transport reform program—the Industry Commission has estimated that GDP benefits could total $800 million per year—as well as making the roads safer. The passage of the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Act 1997 through this parliament extended the life of the NRTC Act for 12 months from January 1998, ensuring that the reform process could continue while this bill was finalised in consultation with states and territories.The government is committed to delivering road transport reform to benefit not only the road transport industry but all the community, rural, regional and urban. Since the NRTC was created in 1991, reforms developed and agreed through the NRTC process include nationally consistent heavy vehicle charges, consistent heavy vehicle registration requirements, national mass and dimension and vehicle standards, a new dangerous goods regime and national driving hours for long distance coaches and trucks. Many further reforms are on the agenda. These reforms will provide a nationally uniform or consistent operating environment for road transport operators and drivers, no matter where they are based or travel. An important ongoing role for the NRTC and all jurisdictions will be to ensure that the gains delivered by reform are maintained and built upon.Effective observance of road transport reform is also one of the key components of the national competition policy, and thus one of the criteria for determining the national competition payments to the states and territories. The bill will give stronger objectives and focus for the NRTC, set by heads of government. It will strengthen the NRTC's accountability to the Australian Transport Council—the council of transport ministers—including through new strategic planning requirements and the appointment of the commission's chief executive by the council. The council will also review the NRTC Act at least every six years. The bill is to be supported by amending heads of government agreements, which will give jurisdictions greater flexibility in their implementation of legislative reforms, so reforms can be implemented more quickly. Heads of government will sign these agreements shortly.The bill provides recognition for the unique transport operational requirements of the defence forces to make it easier for them to operate, particularly in potential security and emergency situations, but with due regard to road safety. These provisions were developed in a strong cooperative spirit by the Department of Defence, the states and territories, and the Department of Transport and Regional Development. The bill also gives legislative backing to the National Environment Protection Council's involvement in the joint development of motor vehicle noise and emission standards, and allows for New Zealand's involvement in developing trans-Tasman vehicle standards.In short, the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 will provide a better road transport reform process that, through cooperation between governments, the NRTC and the road transport industry, will deliver big benefits to the whole Australian community. I commend the bill to the House and, on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2834r4962834Bill presented by Ms Worth, and read a first time.283418:35:002834Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill introduces regulatory controls for all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear safety activities for the first time in Australia. It is designed to protect the health and safety of persons and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation practices undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth. The bill applies to Commonwealth entities and their employees and to non-Commonwealth entities where they are contracted to the Commonwealth. The bill covers, therefore, Commonwealth departments such as Defence, bodies corporate such as the CSIRO and ANSTO, and any person who is a party to a contract with a Commonwealth entity.Under the bill, no Commonwealth entity can deal with radioactive materials or radiation apparatus, or any aspect of a nuclear facility, unless licensed to do so in accordance with this legislation. The bill provides for exemptions to the general prohibition, including specific exemptions for certain defence and security activities in the national interest.This legislation was a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste report, No Time to Waste, which was produced with the close involvement of all political parties. This bill delivers on the government's commitment to close the regulatory gap identified by that committee, whereby Commonwealth agencies have operated without comprehensive Commonwealth oversight and regulation. This is one reason why this legislation is strongly supported by all state and territory governments.From 1 July 1998 the functions and resources of the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Australian Radiation Laboratory will be combined to form the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—ARPANSA—within the Department of Health and Family Services. The bill establishes the statutory office of the CEO of the ARPANSA to:. regulate activities within the Commonwealth which involve radiation and nuclear safety;. work with the states and territories to develop uniform regulatory controls throughout Australia;. inform and advise the government and the public on radiation protection and nuclear safety; and. undertake related research and provide services of a high standard.The bill also provides for the establishment of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council to provide expert advice to the CEO.This bill will result in a centre of excellence for regulation, advice, research and services supporting nuclear safety and radiation protection of employees, the public and the environment. I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2834r4982834Bill presented by Ms Worth, and read a first time.283418:38:002834Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 —the ARPANS Bill. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 provides a capacity for annual charges to be made for licences issued under the ARPANS Bill in line with the government's decision to establish the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The annual fees and application fees will be payable by those entities regulated under the ARPANS Bill. As annual charges are treated as taxes, this separate bill has been prepared.For the purpose of establishing appropriate annual fees, the Commonwealth will employ an independent consultant to advise on appropriate cost recovery processes and fees and charges. Introduction of annual charges and licence fees will be postponed until this process is complete. In the interim, any additional costs resulting from regulating radiation and nuclear practices will be met by the Department of Health and Family Services. I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2835r5052835Bill presented by Ms Worth, and read a first time.283518:40:002835Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998—the ARPANS Bill. This bill details changes to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987—the ANSTO Act—resulting from the introduction of the ARPANS Bill. Changes include repeal ing those parts which established the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Safety Review Committee. These changes are necessary because once the ARPANS Bill is passed the Nuclear Safety Bureau will be incorporated into the new Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Safety Review Committee will become redundant.This bill ensures that the current powers of the Director of the Nuclear Safety Bureau, as set out in the ANSTO Act, are conferred on the CEO of ARPANSA to ensure seamless and continued regulation of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I commend this bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2835r5092835Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.283518:42:002835Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.As a result of changes to the Corporations Law, the bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws to prevent dividend substitution and capital streaming arrangements and make various consequential amendments to the tax laws. The bill also introduces a tainting rule that treats distributions from a tainted share capital account as unfrankable and unrebateable dividends in the hands of shareholders. The amendments will apply on a day to be fixed by proclamation after the bill has been passed by parliament. In respect of the anti-avoidance rule, the rule is to apply to distributions made, or bonus shares issued, after that time, unless made or issued pursuant to a binding commitment entered into before 13 November 1997. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Bills2836r5082836Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.283618:44:002836Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The background to this bill was detailed in my second reading speech of the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 . The bill imposes a liability to untainting tax in certain circumstances where a company elects to untaint its share capital account. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.Business2836Motion (by Ms Worth, for Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 10, private members business, being called on forthwith.Miscellaneous2836283618:45:002836Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I move:That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997, No. 326, made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed.The reason I move this motion—I am pleased to see that at least the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) is in the chamber to hear what I have to say about this—is that there is a long and, unfortunately, not very pleasant history associated with this measure. The former government introduced a $1 environmental management charge, the funding from which would go to assist in the environmental management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. When it was introduced there was no debate because it was considered to be extremely appropriate, certainly from an environmental point of view. Similarly, from a tourism point of view, it was considered to be a reasonable charge to be levied.However, in 1996 in the election campaign the then opposition, now government, went to the people of this country and in a statement in Cairns of its tourism policy the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr Howard), said that his government would not introduce any new taxes nor increase any existing taxes during their first term in office. It is history that he became Prime Minister and that his government was installed with a healthy majority. It is important to mention that members of this chamber whose electorates represent the bulk of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area are all coalition members.Not long after being elected, the government decided that they wanted not only to boost revenue but also to decrease the money that went to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. An inquiry was conducted into the authority and they subsequently endorsed the concept that they would cut money from the budget to that authority and replace it with what they dressed up as an increase in the environmental management charge—what we have rightly called the reef tax. It was announced that there would be a 500 per cent increase in that reef tax from $1 to $6 and that the tour operators—the people who ran the tourist boats out to the reef—would have to collect that on behalf of the government and remit it to the government.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree that a 500 per cent increase in a tax, coming from a government that had said that it would not introduce any new taxes or increase the existing taxes, would have come as a bit of a surprise to people in the tourist industry in tropical North Queensland. The members for Herbert, Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), Hinkler (Mr Neville) and the other areas of tropical Queensland were, privately, a little indignant. They believed their own Prime Minister when he had said they would not increase the reef tax; yet a decision had been taken to increase it by 500 per cent.The result was that the excited tour operators convened a number of public meetings and a number of those members attended those public meetings. The member for Leichhardt got particularly involved, as did Senator Bill O'Chee from the other place. They went along and tried to talk about what they thought was the sense of the proposal to the marine operators in tropical North Queensland but, regrettably for them and positively for the marine operators, could not get agreement on it.As a consequence, it was decided to break it down into two tranches. In the first instance, they would increase it from $1 to $2; subsequently they would increase it by $4. Again, that did not have immediate support; in fact, it had no support from the industry. We saw the first tranche certainly take effect—incidentally, the Labor opposition moved in this place and in the Senate to have that tranche overturned; regrettably, they were not successful in achieving that—and, as a result, other deliberations took place to see whether the second tranche would continue in the manner proposed.After a great deal of backflipping and carrying-on, it was decided that the environmental management charge would stay at that $1 to $2 increase, commencing on 1 January 1997, and that a $4 tourist visitor charge would be levied on users of commercial facilities and craft from 1 January 1998. Once again, this was considered to be rather difficult to sustain in the industry and the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) put out a media release on 19 November 1996. After a further backflip, it was decided that there would be only a $4 charge—it would not increase to $6—and that it would take effect on 1 January 1998. It is in effect at this minute. These regulations, which allow that to occur, are what we are considering here tonight.If it were not for a couple of very significant points here, some support for that measure might have been expected from the industry. There is no doubt that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the great natural wonders of the world, one of the great tourist assets of Australia. It is cherished and revered in tropical North Queensland. Boat operators operating charter vessels taking tourists out to the reef to snorkel, scuba dive and so on take great pride in ensuring that the reef is not harmed. They go to great lengths—and I know the member for Herbert knows this to be the case from the tour operators that operate out of his electorate in Townsville—to ensure that positive measures to protect the reef are put in place. But even they still cannot believe that they are going to be the ones responsible for collecting that tourist visitor charge dressed up as the reef tax. It has now gone from a 500 increase down to a 300 per cent increase in one fell swoop, and that is the regulation that we are concerned about tonight.The other reason, as I said, why I think it is nonsensical for this to be introduced—putting to one side the fact that the government when in opposition had made a promise they would not do something like this—revolves around the fact that the tourist industry in tropical Queensland is suffering at the present moment. The tourist industry in Australia is suffering. The survey results that were published for the month of February show that there was something like a 17 per cent drop in tourist arrivals to Australia in February this year compared with February last year. In tropical North Queensland, one only has to go to Cairns and some of the other major tourist destinations to see the effect that is having on the local economy.Shopkeepers are suffering because tourists are not there. We have seen Asiana Airlines and Malaysian Airlines cancel flights into Cairns airport. The tourists are not coming as a direct result of the Asian currency crisis, yes, but because of other factors as well. Because of the value of the Australian dollar vis-a-vis the currencies of many of our near neighbours, people are finding it cheaper to go to closer destinations or they are actually staying at home. With the recession in Japan predicted to get worse, one can only assume that our major market for much of tropical North Queensland will suffer even more.So what is the last thing you would expect to happen? The last thing you would expect to happen would be for a government to come and put another disincentive in its way. The last thing you would expect would be for an uncaring, unsympathetic government—with a tourism minister who went to Queensland and said that tourism is fine in Cairns because he stayed in a backpacker hostel, they did not recognise him and he could not find a towel; and, because of that, he said that tourism in tropical North Queensland is fine—to say that another disincentive should be placed in the way of attracting tourists to Australia at a time of great economic downturn in the region. It is just a nonsense.Once again we are in this place trying to educate those members that specifically represent tropical North Queensland as to why they should be supporting their constituents. I remember the farcical situation last time when we had people like the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) saying one thing in their own electorate and then coming down here and voting the other way and then saying, `Oh, it was only a procedural motion, so I really did not have to go and support my own constituents who are concerned about the imposition of the reef tax.' And we had others on that side. The member for Leichhardt had been at those meetings up there. He has probably the most to lose because the Cairns area is right in the centre of the Far North Queensland or tropical North Queensland tourist activity and he had received the most representations from the likes of Quicksilver. Our friend that is in the chamber tonight, the member for Herbert, has had representations from Mike Ball Dive Enterprises and those many other people that use the reef. They all have had representations from them, because they have sent copies to us. I have met with those people on many occasions up there, and they are still smarting.Would you not have thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, that those members would have supported this initiative for their electorate? Would you not have thought that they would have supported this idea at a time of economic difficulty for tropical North Queensland, when tourist numbers are dropping off, when occupancy rates in the major hotels are about 40 per cent at best, when Japanese tourists are not coming in the numbers that they were, when airlines are cancelling flights into Cairns, when Townsville is still screaming out for additional services so that it can tap into what is perceived to be the economic benefits coming from the tourist industry? Would you not have thought that those members would have voted with the opposition at least the last time around, and certainly this time? We will wait and see what happens. We will wait and see whether this time those members are prepared to stand up for their electorates or whether once again they are prepared to be thugged into supporting a government measure which is clearly unpopular in their own electorates.There is a third downside to this, and that is the effect on employment. I am not talking specifically about the fact that the people having to collect this 300 per cent increase in tax that is now being applied to them might have to put people off so that they pay for the necessities associated with the collection. That is not what I am specifically worried about. What I am worried about is that there is a disincentive there to attract tourists, whether it be from Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the United States or Great Britain—wherever it might be. If there is a disincentive there, it makes other tourist destinations attractive. And, if it makes other tourist destinations attractive, it means the jobs of the people that manufacture the bread, the people that put flowers into hotels, the people that are there to do the pressing and those people that work in dry-cleaning shops, the people that are there working in the small businesses that this government says it stands up for every time you hear its members speak in this place are going to suffer.If the demand falls off, if the tourist numbers drop off, it stands to reason that demand will not be there and people in many of the small businesses will be looking for ways to save money so that they can survive. How do they do it? By putting off staff. The simplest way to do it is by putting off staff and not hiring. That happens not because of some nonsense being spread by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith)—when he is not out there bashing the wharfies he is talking about unfair dismissal—but because tourist numbers have fallen. As a direct result of that, we should not be putting in other barriers to attracting tourists.I do not have to tell too many people who know anything about the tourist industry that in our immediate near neighbours there has been quite a deal of money spent on trying to attract tourists to their countries. I do not have to tell members that there are reef formations off Indonesia, for example, that, as I understand it, are extremely attractive. I do not know whether they are as good as the ones that are in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, but I am told that, for divers, for snorkelling, for simply looking at the underwater life and looking at the marine life that is there and the corals and so on, it is pretty spectacular stuff. So the last thing we want to do is give our competitors some sort of a break. The last thing we want to do is give these people an opportunity to say, `It is much cheaper to come to us than it is to go to Australia.'At the end of the day the sorts of markets that we are trying to attract are those people who are interested in ecotourism, those people who are interested in coming for a period of time to see something that is a wonder of Australia. When they are making those decisions they are going to sit back and say, `Well, I have got a family. If I want to get on a Quicksilver vessel from Cairns or Port Douglas and go out to the reef, then it is going to cost me X amount of dollars for the ticket to do that, but it is then going to cost me $4 a head for me and my family to go out to pay the Commonwealth government.'What do they do with that money? They said they were going to put it into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, but there is no evidence that all of that money in fact goes there. In effect, there has been a cut in the budget for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and, from the figures I have seen, I do not think that the proposals for the increased collection of the reef tax will go anywhere near recompensing that. The Great Barrier Marine Park Authority is located in the member for Herbert's electorate. He knows the fine work that the employees in that institution do on behalf of Australia in protecting the reef. But they cannot do it if they are constantly hamstrung by dwindling resources.The environment is an important element in Australia's everyday life. People talk about environmental concerns all the time now, and the most cherished environmental resource that we have in tropical Queensland is the Great Barrier Reef. To introduce something like this, a disincentive to tourism, which is going to contribute to stopping tourists going to the Great Barrier Reef—and it will—is just plain silly.It would not surprise me if the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) had not even thought about this, nor bothered to raise it with Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment, under whose portfolio this responsibility lies. It would not surprise me one little bit. Quite frankly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism is seen as an abject failure and an abject joke amongst the tourist industry of this country. He believes that tourism and sport are beneath his abilities. As a consequence, he is showing an arrogance which is breathtaking towards this industry.I just wonder whether our friend the member for Herbert, whether the member for Hinkler, whether the member for Leichhardt, whether the member for Dawson and whether Senator O'Chee have been to see the Minister for Sport and Tourism and asked him whether he has been to see his parliamentary and ministerial colleague, Senator Hill, and said to him, `Listen, we've got a few problems in the tourism industry in this country. Tropical North Queensland is suffering a bit and jobs are suffering a touch. Don't you think we could have another look at this reef tax? By the way, do you remember when the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, stood up at the wharves at Cairns and said that he would not introduce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes? But suddenly he has done it by 300 per cent. Yes, all right it has come down by 500. But he is increasing it by 300 and the tourism operators are supposed to cop that and thank him very much.' I wonder if they have actually been around and had that chat with the Minister for Sport and Tourism, and I wonder what his response was. Judging from what people in the tourism industry tell me, if they could get in to see him, good luck. More importantly, if they did get in to see him and he is prepared to listen to them, then they have achieved something even more remarkable. Probably at this Easter season, it is equivalent to that.Can I conclude simply where I started. This reef tax is anti-Queensland; it is anti-tourism; it is anti-jobs. It is anti-Queensland, anti-jobs and anti-tourism because it is discriminatory. It is being applied only to Queensland. Nowhere else is there an environmental management charge—a reef tax—being levied. It is being levied in Queensland and it is being levied on an industry which is going through a downturn at the moment. If the member for Leichhardt were here, and if he were genuine, he would stand up and he would agree with everything I have said about the state of the tourism industry in his electorate. But he is not here and he is not particularly genuine; I do not think he will vote with us to overturn this regulation.I would like to think that those members who represent the tourist areas of Australia that are affected by this 300 per cent increase in the reef tax will be true to their constituents. I would like to think that they will join with the Labor Party and vote down this pernicious anti-Queensland, anti-tourist, anti-jobs tax. If they do not, they will certainly get an opportunity to explain that to their constituents in the not-too-distant future. I will make sure they are given that opportunity. I commend our motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! Is the motion seconded?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.19:05:002840Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I do not understand why this disallowance motion is before the parliament tonight because the industry and the government have agreed on this particular charge. The industry are happy and have indicated to the government that they are happy. I also do not understand, because the former member for Herbert—that is, the ALP former member for Herbert, who has the same surname as me—also has the same view, as I will enunciate tonight.The government is committed to ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef, one of Australia's magnificent world heritage areas, is managed effectively and that there is a fair and equitable sharing of the costs of managing the reef. This is clearly not a goal shared by the opposition or the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin).The regulation that we are discussing tonight will increase the Great Barrier Reef environmental management charge from $2 to $4. The EMC is a charge on the tourist operators and is generally calculated at the rate of $4 per person per day carried to the reef. The aim of the charge is to achieve a fairer share of the financial burden associated with managing and protecting the reef between taxpayers and those who use the reef. As a result of this regulation, those operators who extract significant private benefit from the use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will make a reasonable contribution to its management and protection.A person who actually visits the reef will effectively pay a little more towards the management of the reef than the average taxpayer who never visits the reef. This is a principle that I would have thought the opposition would have supported. It is not unreasonable to expect those who use the reef to pay a small charge for the privilege. This applies not only to the many Australians who visit the reef but, importantly, also to the thousands of overseas visitors who use the reef. The opposition apparently endorse this philosophy because it was the ALP who originally introduced the environmental management charge. It strikes me as hypocritical that they should now be opposing this relatively minor increase in the charge.Let us explore the extent of the ALP's hypocrisy on this issue. In particular, let us have a look at what a couple of former ALP environment ministers have said. Senator Faulkner said in the Australian on 19 May 1994:I can't shy away from the need to have a look at a user-pays approach. The pressures from the numbers of tourists going to those world heritage areas is going to be enormous, and we have a responsibility to protect their values. In his column in the Australian on 11 September 1996, when discussing the arguments against the proposed increase to the EMC, former ALP Minister for the Environment Barry Cohen said:Most of it—that is, the argument against the increase—unfortunately is nonsense.Barry Cohen, a former ALP minister, is saying that the ALP's arguments are nonsense. He pointed out that the cost of running the marine park authority was somewhere in the vicinity of $25 million to $26 million per annum and that this money had to come from somewhere.We inherited a $10,000 million budget black hole—no doubt about that—and some decisions have to be made to fix up the difficulties that we inherited from the ALP after 13 years. What this increase in the environmental management charge is about—and I stress it is an environmental management charge, not a tax—is protecting the reef. Let me quote Barry Cohen again. He said:The Great Barrier Reef is Australia's greatest environmental treasure. The burden for protecting it is borne by all Australian taxpayers. Gradually a larger part of that burden must be shifted to those who most enjoy it—those who visit the reef.This is what this is all about. These regulations provide the opportunity for the visitors to the park to contribute a little more to its ongoing maintenance.The member for Cunningham himself knows a little bit about this. He is a prime example of the ALP's hypocrisy. The member for Cunningham—and he will remember this—was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts which, in its report entitled Managing Australia's World Heritage, said:A convincing argument can be made for charging those who benefit most from world heritage areas, either financially or as visitors. It is argued that, while taxpayers as a whole contribute through government funding to world heritage management, those who reap special rewards from the areas by earning a living from tourism or through their experiences while visiting the areas should make an additional financial contribution. That was at page 169. The report also said:The Committee considers that where it is feasible to collect fees, they should be more than a token amount. It supports the move in the 1996-97 Budget to increase the environmental management fee . . . That was at page 183. Interestingly, the member for Cunningham was a member of this committee when it handed down its report. He signed off on the report and cannot seriously come into this House and now argue against these regulations.I would also like to quote from the Hansard of 13 May 1993, where the former member for Herbert, Mr Ted Lindsay, was quoting from the Liberal Party's Fightback document. It states:We believe users of our national parks should contribute more towards their upkeep and the provision of facilities.Mr Lindsay then responded in this place by saying:I have no quarrel whatever with that assertion.Mr Lindsay also said:In a communique issued by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council meeting on 10 May 1988, it was proposed that the user-pays principle would apply to tourist operators and tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef. I quote from that communique . . . And the quote was:. . . the principle of charging for the commercial use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Queensland marine parks was endorsed by Council.Mr Lindsay then commented on who members of the council were. He said:Who constituted the council? In attendance were Senator Graham Richardson, Senator Margaret Reynolds . . . Senator Margaret Reynolds comes from North Queensland. The hypocrisy of the ALP now coming into this place and moving this disallowance motion!How will you make up the shortfall? The member for Cunningham is promising to overturn this increase. But not once have we heard from the ALP where they will find the money to cover the shortfall that the disallowance would cause to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's budget? Neither the shadow minister for tourism nor the shadow minster for environment will make a public commitment to fund the shortfall; nor have they told us which part of the budget they would take the funds from to ensure there are sufficient funds available to properly manage the reef.I turn to the value for tourism. Tourism is the largest and fastest growing commercial use of the marine park. It is worth over $1,000 million annually to Queensland and the national economy. There have been significant visitors to the reef in the last several years, and a high proportion of these visitors are North American, European and Japanese. The management of tourism and its impacts occupies a major and growing proportion of the authority's resources.Active management is required to protect the world heritage values of the reef. It is only reasonable that tourism operators and, indirectly, tourists—especially overseas tourists—should contribute to meeting these increasing coasts. The EMC is in effect an investment in our environment and in the future prosperity of the tourism industry which depends so heavily on the reef.I now turn to negotiations with the industry. Since announcing the intention to increase the EMC in the 1996-97 budget, the government has consulted closely with the tourism industry to ensure that the increased charge is implemented smoothly and with the minimum of impact on the industry. The government has accepted a proposal put forward by a number of tourism industry groups which will minimise the impact of the collection of the fee.It had been proposed to implement the original decision through a $2 EMC and a $4 tourist visitor charge. However, the tourism industry groups requested that the government replace this arrangement with one fee only, a $4 EMC, to be effective from 1 April 1998. After careful consideration, Senator Hill has accepted the industry's proposal. The EMC was therefore increased to $4 on 1 April 1998. The government will now not proceed with the tourist visitor charge.Senator Hill accepted the proposal from industry because it is a win-win outcome. We will achieve a fairer sharing of the costs of managing the reef between taxpayers and visitors using the reef. The $4 EMC does not represent an excessive burden on industry. The outcome also addresses industry concerns that the collection of the TVC by the GBRMPA could have been unduly disruptive. Let me quote from a letter to Senator Hill from a key industry association:May we congratulate and thank you on your recent decision regarding the TVC. We congratulate you for—this is the industry's words—accepting the industry's proposal over this issue. This clearly shows that we were acting in full consultation with the industry. We also accepted a number of other proposals put forward by industry representatives. In particular, we have taken the step of linking the EMC to the CPI, a step particularly sought by major industry associations.Let me do a quick comparison with other fees. At an effective rate of $4 per visit, the EMC compares favourably with the fees charged for use in other areas of high natural value, such as Kakadu, Uluru and many state run national parks. For example, both Kakadu and Uluru charge a $15 per person entry fee. That pass is valid for 14 days for Kakadu and seven days for Uluru. Here we have further evidence of ALP hypocrisy. One of the last acts of the previous ALP government was to increase the Uluru charge to $15.While we are on that subject, let us have a look at what the ALP is doing in New South Wales. The Carr government recently announced that it would introduce a new $5 per day park use fee in 15 national parks and reserves. In addition, the daily park fee in Kosciusko was increased from $12 to $18 a car. The ALP has come in here complaining about a $2 increase in the EMC, while Bob Carr moves to introduce a whole range of new park fees in New South Wales. Will the member for Cunningham condemn the Carr government?In relation to the GBRMPA efficiency reforms, management of the Great Barrier Reef—one of Australia's greatest natural assets and the world's biggest multi-use national marine park—is a complex and demanding task; a task that is becoming more demanding and more challenging as the magnitude of management and the likelihood of human impact pressures increases. The government is committed to effective management of the Great Barrier Reef. Recently Senator Hill announced a number of reforms to the administration of the authority which will result in a more efficient and effective organisation.The changes have been widely welcomed in Townsville. As the member for Cunningham has correctly said, the headquarters of the marine park authority are based in my city. The authority is undergoing a comprehensive restructuring process to provide a streamlined, more efficient organisation which will continue the important work of protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The government is ensuring that the authority operates as an effective but efficient organisation. The importance of managing the reef should not allow us to be blinded to the need to ensure that scarce taxpayer funds are spent in the best possible way. The government's goal is for the authority to retain the outstanding international reputation that it has earned for its stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef and to achieve a fairer share of the cost of managing the reef as a key part of our strategy.I congratulate the officers and the staff of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority who do a wonderful job. The recent changes have been widely welcomed both within the authority's structure and from the industry that is serviced by the authority. I believe that a disallowance of these regulations tonight would cause significant problems both with the authority and with the industry. I think it is irresponsible for the member for Cunningham to be moving this motion tonight. These regulations are part of a strategy, and the opposition's hypocritical motion should be roundly rejected tonight.19:19:002843Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The issues that we are looking at today associated with the reef tax have been before the chamber previously. There are a few things that have changed since then that I wish to refer to, and there are a few things that are the same. One of the things I have noticed that has changed is that at least on this occasion there are two members of the gang of five who have been willing to front up into the chamber and put forward a view. We have just heard from the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), and I assume the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) will enter the debate shortly.That is in marked contrast to the earlier occasions when these matters were before the House because they, along with the other members representing central and North Queensland, did everything they could to run from this debate. Not only did they do everything they could to run from the debate themselves; they did everything they could along with the government using its force of numbers to prevent the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) moving a series of motions last year seeking to draw the attention of the House to these problems. They used their vote to quash debate on these issues when they had the opportunity to, and they voted with the government to ensure that these matters associated with the reef tax were not able to be debated properly in the parliament on a number of occasions. So some things have changed. We at least have a debate at the moment, and we see that two of the members who are directly involved are willing to come into the parliament and put forward a view.It is interesting that the seats involved in this are all seats held by the government. I suppose that is not too surprising when you look at the map after the 1996 election. In a sense I stand here as the Labor Party member for Brisbane who holds the northern most seat of the Labor Party in Australia. I guess that is as close to the Barrier Reef as we get at the moment, but it will change.ZT4SOMLYAYMr Somlyay—I used to share that distinction for the Liberal Party.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—As the minister at the table points out, he used to have that dubious distinction for the Liberal Party. We are about to repaint the map at the next election. It is in part because of the position that the members for Herbert, Dawson, Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), Capricornia (Mr Marek) and Hinkler (Mr Neville) have been involved in over the last year or so on this issue.One of the things that I have found most difficult to accept in this debate has been to watch the comments of some of those mem bers when they are at home and then to watch their comments and their votes here in this parliament. When this matter was first being discussed, I well recall the outspoken criticism of the member for Leichhardt. He was so opposed to the imposition of this tax. He was so concerned about what it was going to do to the tourist industry. In the local papers there was a splash of media from the member for Leichhardt about those things. It did not stop him a week or two later coming down here and voting for them. He was a home town hero. He was a real hero back in Cairns fighting for the locals, and then he turned his back on them when he got down here in Canberra and sold them down the drain. That is the fact of the matter. That is exactly what he did. At least the member for Herbert has been willing to come into the House tonight and put up an argument in support of what his government did.Let us go back to what the government has proposed. Today we are dealing with the third, fourth and fifth draft of its plan. We should not be under any misunderstanding about where the government wishes to head with this. Look at what the government announced as its desired outcome. It wanted to take a $1 levy, which was introduced by the previous Labor government—every cent of which went to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the protection of the marine park—turn it into a $6 charge and, in exactly the same budget, cut the amount of money that would be going to the marine park authority. On the one hand, the government wanted to grab more money out of the visitors to the park; on the other hand, with exactly the same budget, it wanted to give less to the protection of the park. That is actually what it has proposed.It is no secret that in private the member for Herbert and a couple of his other colleagues sought to try to convince their members in the government to change their view. They knew it was an insane proposal. They knew they could not sell it anywhere. They knew it was bad policy. More than that, they, like everyone else, knew it was a breach of promise. The member for Herbert made a point of saying that we had a different view about Uluru and somehow we are inconsistent. At the last election, it was not us who stood up in Cairns and Townsville and promised the tourist industry that we will not increase taxes, that we will not introduce new taxes. It was the Liberal Party that promised the people of North Queensland there would be no increases in taxes and there would be no new tax.Straight after they got elected, they hit the most vital industry in North Queensland—the tourist industry. They hit the tourist industry at a time when they thought they might have been able to get away with it. As it turns out, they could not, and the political reaction from the industry and from their own party people was such that they had to modify it.Cast your mind back a few years earlier if you want to talk about the Labor Party's performance on this matter. When we introduced the $1 fee—every cent of which went to look after the marine park—tourism was booming. The year-on-year growth was so big the challenge for the tourism industry was to meet next year's demand. Placing a $1 fee at a time of massive growth was not a burden on the industry. What has this government turned around and done? It initially sought to increase the charge to $6 at a time when the industry was not booming. Now, a year or so later, it wants to increase it to $4, at a time when the industry is not booming but in serious difficulty.I do not get to North Queensland nearly as often as the members for that area, but I do get there pretty regularly. While I am up there, I talk to people in the tourist industry and in the community about how business is going. There has been a clear decline in business activity in North Queensland over the course of the last eight to 12 months. A lot of that has been exacerbated over the last six months or so by the currency crisis. Tourism flights, as the member for Cunningham had pointed out, have been cut enormously.Even if you accept all of the logic that the government advanced last year on this—we do not; it is a breach of their own promises, but we assume it was not a core promise—I say to you: wake up and look at the situation this year. The simple fact is that this year the industry is doing it tough. The last thing the tourism industry in North Queensland wants is this additional charge or any other charge.The crazy thing about this is that this is a government imposed charge. This is something over which you, the government, have absolute authority. It is not something in which you can run your arguments about wage rates, try to do in workers or take away their right to negotiate and say that that is a big problem. This is a charge you are directly imposing. You know that the industry does not want it. You know the industry cannot afford it. You know that it will have an effect, a further impact, on the attractiveness of those locations to visitors, particularly foreign visitors, at a time when the currency exchange rates are very much hurting those countries from which we were getting massive increases in our tourism.I have not seen the recent figures, but my understanding is that tourism from Japan has pretty much plateaued; tourism in Korea has nose-dived; and tourism from countries closer in the region, like Malaysia and Indonesia, has also nose-dived. Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Shute Harbour—those places around Proserpine and Airlie Beach, which are absolutely some of the most magnificent parts of the country—are all suffering now because of those problems and the impact they are having on the tourism industry. Against that background, this government wants to press ahead with an increase in fees—an increase that amounts to a tax, no matter how you badge it, which you are asking the operators to collect for you and a tax which they can ill-afford to meet. It is the wrong tax at the wrong time that breaches your own undertakings to the people of Queensland.Of all places to hurt—Queensland! Twenty-six members of the federal parliament are from Queensland, 24 of whom are from the government. In fact, come to think of it, that is not so anymore. There are a couple on the crossbenches, on the Independent benches, and it is growing. We picked up another one from Queensland this week, come to think of it. There are two Labor members; you can put the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) in a box by herself; and you have just lost the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford). I am not sure what the next couple of months hold. Whichever way you cut the cake, at the time the last election occurred you walked away with 23 out of 26 Queensland seats. Along the coast, seats that the Labor Party held were lost at the last election—Herbert, Leichhardt and Capricornia. The election prior to that was Hinkler, and you turned Dawson from a marginal into a safe seat. The people of Queensland took you at your word.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—I remind the member for Brisbane that the chair has not taken anybody at their word.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The people of Queensland took the Liberal-National coalition government at their word. During that last election, when the Liberal and National parties received a massive swing, larger in Queensland than in any other state or territory in this country, they gave a degree of trust to the Liberal and National Party members which the Liberal and National Party members have betrayed. One of the symbols of that betrayal is what we are now debating. One of the symbols of that betrayal is your failure to honour your promises to the people of Queensland in the tourism industry. The stupidity of that is that your ideologically driven agenda is going to see the government persist with this policy, even though they know that this is a bad time to implement this policy even if they think it is right. They know now is not the time.The motion of disallowance that has been moved by my colleague the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) is an important one to the people of Queensland. It is more than that; it is important to see whether or not those members in the seats concerned are going to stand up for their electorates. Most importantly, as a Queensland member myself, I will be looking to see whether those who have been so vocal at home and so concerned at home in opposing this reef tax have the intestinal fortitude to represent their constituents here with a little of the vigour they claim to have when they are back home. We will see again, like previously, whether or not they are just going to be home town heroes and try to be double faced in their presentation to the electorate. The difficulty in their doing that is that these are going to be on the record votes. They can be assured that their constituents will be well-informed about the position they have adopted.19:32:002846Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—Run from the debate? Annie Oakley? I have got you in my sights, mate, because I know what you have done about this; you have come in here with fancy little stunts and you have not delivered. Do you know what this shadow minister for tourism said in this House last year? Do you know what he said, Mr Deputy Speaker?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—The member for Dawson will resume her seat.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: as I am sure you will understand, the standing orders require that members be addressed by their correct title, and I do not think she was actually talking about you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the member for Dawson to address her remarks through the chair and refer to members by the names of their seats.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—It has started, has it not? You do not want to hear it so you are going to pull on points of order all night. That is the coward's way out, so you keep doing it because you cannot address the issue. I will just tell you: on 6 March the member for Cunningham, who is also the shadow minister for tourism, came into this House and said, `How stupid are the tourism operators as well.' That is a great statement about the tourist industry in our state and in this country. So that is the opinion the member for Cunningham has of tourist operators. I will tell you what has happened on this issue. Let us just have a bit of a look at history. The environmental management charge was introduced in 1993 by the Labor government as a move to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef was protected, enhanced and managed properly. At the budget of 1996 the decision was made that the environmental management charge be increased from $2 to $6.Far from running from the debate, we have not indulged in stunts in the House with cute little disallowance motions and so on. We have gone back—every single member in this House went back to their electorate—and negotiated with the tourist industry, worked with the minister behind the scenes, instead of pulling cute little stunts in the House, which go nowhere. And do you know what? We were successful in bringing it down to $4, with a whole range of subsequent things.The reason the member for Cunningham said, `How stupid are the tourist operators,' is that that is what they wanted and accepted. We implemented for our constituents what they asked for. At a public meeting in the Whitsundays, unanimously my tourist operators asked for a $4 environmental management charge. Unfortunately, the shadow minister for tourism, because he spends most of his time down here thinking up cute stunts in the House of Representatives, does not get out and talk to the tourist operators. If he did he might know something about the tourist industry in the Whitsundays.I will tell him something: while he has been bemoaning the situation in South-East Asia—the only comment he has made tonight that I agree with; it is a tragic situation and it is having ramifications on many of our export industries—he should have got his facts right on the Whitsundays first. It might help in future—I have got them. By the way, I just want to say that we are now being blamed not only for the crisis—8I4MARTINMr Martin—What are they?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I will get to that in a moment. I will debate this in my own way, thank you. We are not only being blamed for the crisis in Australia and the budgetary problems here; we are now being blamed for South-East Asia. We were happy to fix up your problems here but there is not a lot we can do about South-East Asia. I will tell you what we did do in the Whitsundays, which you had no part in: we have actually increased our tourist numbers by six per cent. Do you know how we did it? We put in $1 million promotion package, out of the blue. I'll bet that is news out of the blue for you. It is a pity you do not check up on your information. It has gone up six per cent. At the recent tourism industry awards in the Whitsundays we had a rise. Whitsunday visitors and conventions bureau, congratulations—you did a great job, and so did we. So this obviously is going to be the arsenal for the next election. I can see it now; stunts in the House, slimy accusations against female members of parliament—absolutely disgraceful, your party.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Where?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Not the members here, I will say. Slimy accusations against female members of parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Will the honourable member for Dawson please address her remarks through the chair. It is less confrontationist if you do it that way. That is why the standing orders are such.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I am happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will repeat my comments. This is obviously the arsenal for the next election. Because there are no fresh ideas, except for those of the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham), and no idea of promoting tourism as we have done, we now have stunts in the House. We have increased the tourism numbers in the Whitsundays by six per cent, something we are very proud of.8I4MARTINMr Martin—When was the figure?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—We have also ensured that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority does not have a shortfall of $3 million. Our reef is one of the safest in the world; it is protected and managed properly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham has had his opportunity to speak. Let us observe standing order No. 55.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—There have been recently some very sound initiatives brought in by the Minister for the Environment to address the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, its structure and operations. But can I tell you what was left to us by the previous government, the Labor government, that are full of stunts, full of slimy accusations, but very short on substance. Do you know what they had? They had a secretariat in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority here in Canberra with seven staff. Last time I checked there was no reef around Canberra. But the member for Cunningham probably gets plenty of time to check, because he does not seem to get up to the north much.Do you know what else they did? They were not putting enough resources into practical care of the reef. Do you know that the Whitsundays were asking the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for six years to fund moorings and microbuoys at the Whitsundays. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are on the environment committee. You would be well aware that one of the most detrimental actions to a reef is anchor damage. If you have not got any moorings, you have to throw the anchor down. It latches onto the coral and, as that boat spins around during the night, it rips the coral.Do you know what? We asked the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—under the previous government of members opposite, who are chuckling; they can chuckle, but they did not do anything—for $100,000 out of a $23 million budget to fund moorings at the Whitsundays. OUCH, the Organisation of Underwater Coral Heroes, volunteered to put these moorings down. They were going to donate their work. But we still could not get it out of GBRMPA. That is what happened under the previous government. I am very pleased to say, however, that under this government there are now moorings being placed at the Whitsundays. We have got the $100,000. Even more than that, we are going to rejig the structure of GBRMPA.Let me tell you some of the things the Minister for the Environment is going to do. He is looking at a range of measures. Certainly the critical issues are going to remain as a priority for GBRMPA—conservation, world heritage, tourism and recreation, fisheries, water control, coastal development. But the administrative reforms are going to be delivering a saving of $1.2 million a year to taxpayers. This is not going to happen with a reduction in salaries. It is going to be achieved with voluntary redundancies and vacant positions. I wonder whether any of those vacant positions are going to be at the secretariat in Canberra that existed under the previous Labor government. But that is a matter for another day.We will be prioritising research expenditure so we can get some practical care of the reef—something you never addressed. We are looking at a strategic plan to be released for public comment. This is a government that likes public comment. We do not do it behind the scenes. Major information needs to be addressed through monitoring activities. The legislative structure of the authority is now 20 years old, and doesn't it show. I would like to conclude my comments by reiterating what the member for Cunningham—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Say something about the tax. It would be refreshing.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I will. Tourist operators in my area asked for a $4 environmental management charge. It was delivered by hardworking members in our area.Mr Bevis interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Do you know what else we delivered?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I will not say it again to the members of the opposition. I will not tolerate constant interjections. The members present have had their opportunity to speak. In accordance with standing order 55, members making contributions are entitled to be heard in silence. That is all I am going to say. I am warning you.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—It is nice to see somebody bring some decorum back to the House. I would like to talk about the environmental management charge which was endorsed at $4 at the Whitsundays by a public meeting of tourist operators. It was what they wanted, it was what they asked for and it was what, I am pleased to say, the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) and other hardworking members in this House delivered behind the scenes. While those on the other side were pulling stunts in the House with disallowance motions and sneaky little messages about the gang of five, the gang of five were working hard—and we have achieved the result. More than that, we have not taken $3 million out of GBRMPA, which would have seen some of the very necessary environmental and what will under the new structure be practical care of the reef undertaken.I just cannot believe that on 6 March 1997 the member for Cunningham, the shadow minister for tourism, would so insult tourist operators from Cairns, Townsville, the Whitsundays and as far down as Maryborough by saying how stupid the tourism operators are. They all know about that. They all know what the shadow minister for tourism, the member for Cunningham, thinks about the tourist operators, who negotiated here with the Minister for the Environment, after they had achieved an environmental management charge that they are satisfied with, after they had ensured that the very thing that ensures their livelihood, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Great Barrier Reef, will be properly managed and practically focused in their care of the reef.Yes, I think we have done our job. It is a pity, though, that the opposition will continue with stunts in the House, with slimy accusations against female members of parliament. Whilst that is happening, I know that members on this side are delivering for their electorates. We are happy to go out and talk about our achievements, including five interest rate cuts for tourism operators. On a mortgage of $100,000, they save $2,500 a year. That is money in their pocket. They are real changes for tourist operators.We have also been endeavouring to overcome not only the crisis in Australia left to us by those on the other side but the drop in tourism numbers because of the South-East Asian crisis. We have succeeded in our area, with six per cent growth in tourist numbers. If members opposite ever get out of Canberra they might check on some of that—very helpful.I will leave the debate there. I am pleased this was raised tonight. I am pleased that the opposition, who have not worked to restructure GBRMPA, who have not worked to negotiate with the tourist industry, who have not worked to get interest rates down, who have not bothered to come up and really find out what is happening with promotion in our area, raised this tonight because it has given us a chance to tell the House the truth. Question put: That the motion (Mr Martin's ) be agreed to.19:49:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr J.A. Forrest)43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.74Abbott, 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. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Holding, A. C. Halverson, R. G.McLeay, L. B. Reid, N. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Committees2849284928492849Grace, Ted, MPMr TED GRACEZG4FowlerALP00—As required by resolution of the House, I table copies of notification of alterations of interests received during the period 4 December 1997 to 8 April 1998.284928492849Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—I present the report of the Committee of Privileges concerning an application for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives.Bills2849r3062849Consideration resumed from 1 April.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of Fund .(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), after the definition of quarter , insert: Reserve means the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve established under section 11. (3) Part 3, clauses 11 to 13, page 7 (lines 2 to 20), omit the Part, substitute:Part 3—The Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve11 Establishment of Reserve (1) There is established a Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve. (2) The purpose of the Reserve is to provide funding for the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Program. (3) The Reserve is a component of the Reserved Money Fund. (4) If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of money from the Reserve, an amount equal to the interest must be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.12 Transfers to Reserve There is to be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts equal to the amounts of levy received by the Commonwealth.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—The changes in the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 proposed by the Senate raise important points of constitutional principle to which it is the Speaker's duty to draw the attention of the House. The final Senate change seeks to amend part 3 of the bill as transmitted to the Senate. This part of the bill proposed to establish a strategic ballast water research and development fund, into which amounts were to be paid from the consolidated revenue fund equal to amounts raised by the levy.The alteration sought by the Senate to part 3 of the original bill and amendments (1) and (2), which are consequential, would omit reference to `Fund' and substitute `Reserve'. The bill is a 1997 bill, and the amendment was necessitated because on 1 January 1998 the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 commenced operation. This act established a reserved money fund to replace the trust accounts previously provided for under the Audit Act. It also provided that, if another act establishes a component of the reserved money fund and identified the purposes of the component, the component could be identified for those purposes, and standing appropriating provisions were included. Purported Senate amendment No. 3 identified the reserve as a component of the reserved money fund.The Senate may seek, by way of amendment, the removal from a bill of appropriating provisions. However, having done that, the Senate should not then insert provisions which appropriate moneys. The appropriate way to proceed in these circumstances is by way of request. This is supported by legal opinion.The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights between the two Houses but observance of the requirements of the constitution concerning the appropriation of revenue. An important point of constitutional principle raised in the matter relates to section 56 of the constitution, which provides that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue shall not be passed unless the Governor-General has recommended the appropriation by message. Complementary standing orders provide for the timing of announcement of such messages, including where amendments or requests for amendments are involved. As the Senate's purported amendments have an appropriating effect, there is significant doubt as to the constitutionality of proceeding in the absence of a Governor-General's message recommending appropriation. It is, of course, for the House itself to decide what action to take on this matter.Motion (by Mr Somlyay) agreed to:That the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 448 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collecting Bill 1997.19:57:002850Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That the Senate's purported amendments be disagreed to.The Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill 1997 and the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 is a package of legislation to introduce a levy on certain ships to provide funding for the strategic ballast water research and development program. The money collected will fund research and development aimed at minimising the risk and, in the longer term, possible prevention of the introduction of unwanted marine pests and disease pathogens found in ballast water in ships' hulls. The bill being amended—the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997—will establish the strategic ballast water research and development fund which was to be a trust account for the purposes of the Audit Act 1901.Since the bill was introduced, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 has come into force. Section 20 of the act replaces the provisions of the Audit Act relating to the trust fund and trust accounts. Under that section, the fund called the reserved money fund is established, and various components of that fund are called reserves. As a result, the strategic ballast water research and development fund is now required to be known as the strategic ballast water research and development reserve and is to be a component of the reserved money fund. These amendments provide for the necessary changes to the bill so that it will comply with the requirements of section 20 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act.Question resolved in the affirmative.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Motion (by Mr Somlyay) agreed to:That the amendments set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members be made in place of the Senate's purported amendments which have been disagreed to.Bills2851r465Billsr466Billsr481Billsr479Billsr475Billsr473Billsr469Billsr471Billsr477Billsr462BillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBillsBills2851Debate resumed.20:01:002851Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—As I was saying before the debate was adjourned, the developments of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority do rely on a number of very important goals, as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) outlined in his second reading speech. The first one was the maintenance of financial stability, the second was the provision of specialised regulation of conduct disclosure and dispute resolution for financial service providers and financial markets, and the third was the prudential supervision. As I pointed out, what this should be leading to is the fact that not only will Australia have a world class financial regulation system but also that Australia is moving into a position where we will be one of the great financial centres of the world.I was also very heartened by some comments that the Treasurer made in his second reading speech when he talked about the fact that the prudential regulator will be an independent regulator but, like the Reserve Bank, will be subject to an overriding policy determination power of the Treasurer. He went on to talk about the fact that the prudential regulator will have to produce an annual report. That report will be presented to parliament and it could be referred to a parliamentary committee.I thought it was quite significant that the Treasurer, in that second reading speech, named the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration as the committee likely to do a detailed submission. I thought that was quite significant because in our report in September of that committee, which I chair, we made a specific recommendation when we were looking at the annual report of the Reserve Bank, and also the ASC and the ISC, that the new Australian Prudential Regulation Authority should be required to appear before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration at a public hearing once a year to report on prudential supervision of the financial services industry. So I think it is quite significant that the Treasurer has made reference to that in his second reading speech.I would like now to talk about some of the important issues that will be facing the prudential regulator and the whole new regulation of the financial system. Clearly, with this new system, which has come from the recommendations of the Wallis report—and I commend the Treasurer for taking up those recommendations—we do see some very important challenges that are likely to come before these new regulators. In fact, one might even describe it as possibly a baptism of fire. The concern I have is that in the transition from the existing system of regulation, which I think everyone recognises has served us very well, to the new system of regulation, which I think both sides of the parliament recognise will serve us even better, there is an interesting period facing the financial system in the next year or two. I think all of us are very much aware of what has occurred in Asia in the financial area and we have recognised that so far, because of the very good financial management of this government, Australia has been largely immune from what has occurred in Asia.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Let's see what it's like in two months.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—That confidence, not only within Australia but right throughout the region and indeed in other parts of the world, is something this government can be very proud of. I did allude to some of the benefits of that good management of the government in an earlier part of my speech.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—This is a `no child will live in poverty' speech.RH4KERRMr Kerr—This is a `no child will be living in poverty' significant statement.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—But, of course, we do have to look at what is occurring in Japan, which all of us who are interested in these areas—although I am not sure that some of the honourable members opposite are all that interested—know is very serious and could have very serious implications for Australia.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I thought you had fireproofed—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! If the honourable member for Denison wishes to participate in the debate he should put his name on the speakers list and the honourable member for Wills should keep his comments until he speaks. The honourable member for Wannon will be heard in silence.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, what is occurring in Japan is something quite serious and something that all of us should be watching. If you then couple that with some of the other occurrences around the world you will see, for example, that by some measures Wall Street is now exceeding 1929 levels. That does not necessarily mean the obvious but it is a salutary warning. We are also seeing some very timely warnings from eminently respected people in our own community.I refer honourable members to an article that was in the Business Review Weekly last month. The front page headline quoted Mr Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, who is an eminently respected financier in Australia, hold ing many positions of responsibility, and who is very highly regarded, as saying, `I think the world is headed for recession.' I think what Mr Newman was trying to do was to alert people to the potential—and I think that is all it was, the potential—problems that could occur with the millennium bug if (and I underline the word `if') we are complacent about what that could mean in Australia.In the article there were a number of very clear warnings. We can look at a couple of them. Mr Newman went on to talk about one of the foremost authorities on the year 2000, the Deutsche Bank chief economist:He is by nature quite an optimistic economist and he says there's a 60% chance of a severe global recession lasting 12 months and in the US real GDP could fall by at least four percentage points from peak to trough.That is a timely warning and I bring it up in the context of the fact that we will be looking at the transition from our existing financial regulation to the new system. So we should take that warning on board to ensure that that transition is made in a way that does not allow any form of slippage in the question of regulation and, most importantly, does not allow something like that to get out of hand. We should be grateful for what Mr Newman has had to say; nonetheless, we should be warned that there is no room for complacency.I would like to mention the growth of the use of derivatives in Australia. It is an area that we should be watching very closely. To date it has been very well regulated. Those who operate the derivatives and futures markets and so on have been extremely responsible and have kept a very tight hold on them. Nevertheless, the turnover, for example, in the Sydney Futures Exchange last year was $8.9 trillion, up 13 per cent on the previous year. Of course, the bank to bank use of derivatives is significantly greater than that. In the last four years we have seen a 50 per cent increase in the all up use of derivatives. While one should not see these figures as a cause for alarm, the fact is that the turnover each year on the collective derivative markets in Australia is now around $1½ million for every man, woman and child. That is a very significant amount of money on what is a highly leveraged financial tool. As everyone in the futures game knows, it is a zero sum game: for every winner there is a loser. Most of the use of derivatives is for very sound financial reasons and all of us appreciate the importance of the futures market and the role it plays. We all respect the competence of the Sydney Futures Exchange. We understand that there are very tight margin calls on the Futures Exchange to ensure that liquidity remains. It is recognised that the Futures Exchange coped very well with the stock market problems of 1987. But, I come back to the point that it is timely to consider this when we look at the way financial regulation is going, particularly in the transition.In the short time that I have left to me I would like to again talk about the importance of the role of the Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee. In the work that my committee is doing looking at this whole area, we continue to have our half-yearly meetings with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I pay tribute to the Governor for the way he takes those public hearings very seriously. With the way the committee operates nowadays we are developing our own expertise and we will continue to quiz the Governor on the very important issues of not only monetary policy but also all the areas of financial regulation which currently the Reserve Bank controls.The committee will be looking, as the new system is brought into place with the prudential regulator and the other arms of financial regulation that the government is introducing, to ensure that Australia can indeed claim with some pride that not only do we have a world-class system of regulation but that we have the right—and indeed develop the opportunity—to become one of the great financial centres of the world, so that Australia can, along with Tokyo, New York and London, be one of the four great financial centres of the world.This is something that the government, led by John Howard and ably supported by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, has indeed set up as an opportunity for Australia as we go into the 21st century. This set of bills is part of that great development. (Time expired)20:13:002854Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I am pleased to join in such a lively debate. This package of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and cognate bills applies some of the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry report, widely known as the Wallis report. I want to speak briefly about some aspects of the Wallis report which I have concern about. I want to examine those aspects of the Wallis report which apply to the superannuation industry, a public policy area which this government has handled appallingly—seriously undermining public confidence. Unfortunately, the areas of the Wallis report that the government seems to have embraced are areas which will potentially undermine it even further.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) has already outlined Labor's position on these bills—that is, our broad support for the initiative of creating two super regulatory bodies, one overseeing the prudential requirements of the financial services market and the other overseeing the consumer protection aspects. Of concern, however, is the diminishing of consumer protection as a result of reducing the jurisdictional powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to regulate the financial services industry. Labor has been broadly supportive of the government's financial services regulatory changes, for example, the regulation of managed investments and the regulation of companies. After all, some of the bills presented by the government have been previously canvassed by Labor when in government and they have simply been simply re-badged by this government to gain credit for work that Labor has already done.But we have not been supportive of the government's changes to the regulation of the superannuation industry and superannuation changes in general, which have undermined public confidence in superannuation as a savings vehicle, with potentially disastrous implications for retirement income levels and for national savings.Like the package we have here before us today, Labor will be carefully scrutinising any further changes to the regulation of corpora tions through the CLERP reform process to ensure that the interests of ordinary Australians are not swept under the carpet either in the name of economic efficiency or in the name of a Treasurer seeking to deliver to the big end of town to consolidate his chances of taking over the Liberal Party leadership.The package of bills before us gives effect to major changes to the structures of the regulatory bodies themselves by establishing two megaregulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, lovingly known as APRA and ASIC. The government, therefore, is changing the regulation of financial services markets—for example, collective investments, superannuation, company law, Corporations Law, payments systems, financial sector shareholdings and banking—at the same time as it is changing the regulatory bodies themselves.ASIC will effectively see the Australian Securities Commission, ASC, combine with the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, ISC, to become the principal consumer protection and market integrity regulator across the financial services market. In addition to ASIC, we have the creation of APRA, which will oversee the prudential regulation of banks and other deposit taking institutions, life and general insurance companies, superannuation funds and retirement income accounts. APRA represents the third component of what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) describes as the `three fundamental regulatory objectives for Government intervention in the financial system'—that is, the prudential supervision component.Like ASIC, APRA is a major upheaval of the currently fragmented prudential regulatory bodies and rolling them into the one body presents challenges of its own. But APRA is also being created at a time of major change to market regulation. That these two bodies are being created during a time of such great regulatory change is of concern to the opposition and is something that I believe the Senate Economics Committee should be examining closely.Unless the government is vigilant, some things are bound to fall through the cracks as the regulators change and the regulations change at the same time. That is just about a rolled gold certainty. Things falling through the cracks is certainly not a desirable aspect of Australia's financial system and it is something that we have been trying to avoid. I think we have all been trying hard to learn some of the lessons of the eighties and about the operations of the white shoe brigade. But, as the Four Corners program pointed out on Monday night in its investigation into what it called the `superannuation stakes', there is the potential that neither of these regulatory bodies will be up and running by the 1 July this year start-up date that is anticipated. That may not be due to legislative delay in the parliament. It simply may not be physically possible to achieve these changes by the start date or to have the two bodies operating effectively in time to oversee the regulatory changes.Four Corners last Monday night mentioned the example of the regulation of the superannuation industry as an area where regulators need time to adjust to new public policies. That is one of the many reasons why I have been calling on the government to support an opposition amendment to schedule 5 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) which would delay the start-up date for choice of superannuation fund until 1 July 2000, which would allow consumers of superannuation to be educated to make an informed decision about choice.A single licensing regime for financial services, advisers and intermediaries is a welcome step in the right direction, particularly given the further deregulation of financial services at the retail level which is occurring in, for example, the superannuation market.I want to turn to two specific issues raised in the Wallis report which affect the area that I have opposition responsibility for: superannuation industry. Those two issues are the reduction in consumer protection as a result of theft and fraud and the moving of the regulation of what are called `excluded superannuation funds' from the ISC or ASIC to the Australian Taxation Office.The government is proposing to weaken superannuation investor protection from theft and fraud. The protection of superannuation investors is something that Labor treats very seriously and we are very proud of our record in this area. Labor established the SIS legislation with the purpose of ensuring the prudent management and essential protection of the superannuation deposits of all Australians. To date, with few exceptions, SIS has proven to be an outstanding piece of regulatory legislation which has effectively safeguarded superannuation assets. However, if the government gets its way, this will change and the protection of investor superannuation funds from theft and fraud will be reduced.Under current arrangements, the Treasurer has the power to grant financial assistance to a superannuation fund which suffers a loss of funds due to theft or fraud when he or she considers it to be in the public interest. The Treasurer may also impose a levy on each superannuation fund in the industry of up to 0.05 per cent of the funds' assets to raise the required amount to meet funds which are stolen or lost through fraudulent conduct.However, the government's proposed new arrangements in response to the Wallis report will significantly weaken superannuation fund protection measures. The government has listed the Superannuation (Fraud) Amendment Bill on its forward list of bills to be introduced in the autumn sitting session, but it has not been introduced for reasons the government knows best. Indeed, this government's management of the legislative program has been little short of abysmal. But we do expect to see that bill introduced some time in the next sitting, and I believe it will reflect the recommendations of the Wallis report as adopted by the government which are as follows. Firstly, under the new measures the Treasurer would need only to apply a national interest test, rather than a public interest test, in determining whether he or she should grant financial assistance to a superannuation fund which suffers from fraud or theft. Labor believes that the public interest test should remain. The government's No. 1 priority should be to secure every Australian's retirement nest egg from theft or fraud.Secondly, the new measures propose that the Treasurer's grant of financial assistance to a superannuation fund should be reduced from up to 100 per cent, under the current arrangements, to 80 per cent of the entitlement of the beneficiaries of a fund. That represents a significant watering down of the current superannuation protection measures. I am sure that millions of Australians who have money invested in superannuation accounts will be less than impressed to hear that, under the government's proposed model, in the event of theft or fraud of their superannuation money they would receive only 80 per cent of their entitlements compared with the full 100 per cent that they are entitled to under the current arrangement.Labor strongly opposes any measure to reduce the entitlement of all Australians to receive the full amount of their superannuation benefits if they are lost as a result of theft or fraud. This is particularly important given the increased spread of superannuation and the increased level of contributions as a result of the Labor government's superannuation policies. They would have increased further, of course, had the Liberal government not failed to honour its commitment to pay the three plus three per cent co-contribution into superannuation.Thirdly, the government's new arrangement will apply only to superannuation fund losses which result from `fraud'. Does that mean that the superannuation funds will no longer be protected from theft? Labor strongly believes that there should be no weakening of the current arrangements which protect superannuation money from both theft and fraud, and that the arguments put forward by the Wallis inquiry concerning moral hazard are wrong. The concept of moral hazard rests on the notion that individual superannuation investors should make their own decisions about the safety of their superannuation fund. To insure them 100 per cent, so it is said, is to encourage unsafe behaviour by investors and by those trustees who invest moneys on their behalf.I want to suggest that that is an incorrect assumption. First, superannuation investors, ordinary employees who receive superannuation contributions paid on their behalf by employers, do not currently have the appropri ate level of education to make this type of investment decision. All the evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation inquiry into choice of fund confirmed that. Secondly, the compulsory nature of superannuation contributions requires that superannuation funds are protected by the highest possible protection regime. There should be no doubt in the mind of the public that, if their superannuation moneys are stolen or embezzled, the government can make a decision to levy the industry to replace those moneys. On the issue of moral hazard, it is the superannuation industry itself which is better qualified and placed to detect theft and fraud rather than an individual who is having superannuation contributions paid into a fund on their behalf and who is much more remote from the process. In that sense, the industry has an incentive to self-regulate to detect theft and fraud from within in order to avoid being levied by the government to account for shonky behaviour.The issue of theft and fraud is unique. It is a crime which is generally unusual in the superannuation industry, although there are exceptions. It is not like risky investment strategies, where a fund manager indulges in risky behaviour with the thought that if things go wrong the rest of the industry will bail him or her out. The SIS Act has provisions in it, including personal responsibility for directors, designed to protect against that type of behaviour. So the argument that there is a moral hazard in allowing the government to fully replace superannuation moneys in the event of theft and fraud is wrong, and I look forward to debating that issue when it comes before us. With a greater reliance on superannuation for retirement, Australians must be able to rest easily in the knowledge that their retirement nest egg is safe and secure.The other issue that the Wallis inquiry raises is the issue of the supervision of excluded funds shifting from the ISC, which is now to become the ASIC, to the Australian Taxation Office. On the face of it, I am not opposed to such a move. The ISC has had some concerns about the regulation of small excluded funds, particularly in the area of taxation concessions. However, we do intend to closely examine this issue to ensure that those with excluded funds and are not unfairly disadvantaged.I do not think that we have yet said enough in this place concerning the problems associated with the proposed introduction of choice of superannuation fund by 1 July this year. Yesterday I issued a press release calling on the government to support Labor's amendments designed to delay the start of choice of superannuation fund. I have already outlined to the parliament my view that the government should delay choice as part of a commitment to ensuring workers are able to understand the decisions they will be forced to make under the government's model. However, the government's insistence on beginning choice of fund on 1 July has drawn a lot of criticism from the industry and the media, not least because we question whether the regulation package will be in force by that time. It is becoming increasingly clear that the government is not interested in listening to employees, employers or the superannuation industry concerning this issue but wishes to drive choice forward as part of a quest to give the banks a share of the superannuation pie in order to give the banks ever larger profits.It ought to be said that what the bills in front of the House do is to establish a new regulatory regime and that without such a regulatory regime for banks people simply would not put their money in them. They would not have confidence that there is an appropriate regulatory regime in place and that therefore their money was safe. This puts banks in a privileged position, as does their special place in terms of the issuing of banking licences. With that privileged position, in my view, come obligations to the community. But banks are saying to us directly that their obligations are not to the community, not to their customers, but to their shareholders alone.We have witnessed this in the drive to push people away from retail banking towards automatic teller machines and towards EFTPOS. That is a drive which has no community support and, if the banks maintain it, there will be a massive public backlash. In my own electorate of Wills, going back a month or two, the Commonwealth Bank moved to close its Strathmore branch. It was the only branch in that suburb and one which enjoyed very strong support from local people—the bank never denied that—and one which was very important to the Napier Street Strathmore shopping centre. Notwithstanding massive community protest, hundreds of people attending a public meeting, thousands of petition signatures and hundreds of letters—QI4PRICEMr Price—Which bank?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed, which bank? The Commonwealth Bank proceeded to close that branch. They did not stop there. They have written to me a couple of days ago announcing that, not content with that, they are proposing to close the Brunswick East, Brunswick West and Oak Park branches as of Friday, 1 May. Given that that is my birthday, it is a pretty ordinary birthday present, but it is even worse for those people who make use of the Commonwealth branches in those places.I know the Oak Park branch quite well. When I was a state member of parliament, my office was located in the Oak Park shopping centre. That is a shopping centre that has endeavoured to keep itself alive and to attract patronage. Just a fortnight or so ago they had a festival, and that was particularly well received. There was a lot of public interest and support for it, and it was a sign of a future for that shopping centre. But along comes the Commonwealth Bank now and says, `We've got no need of the Oak Park branch'—indeed, there were a couple of branches there before the amalgamation with the State Bank—`and we are going to close that branch.' They have said the same thing concerning Brunswick East and Brunswick West.As I said earlier, this is simply part of a drive to say to people, `We don't want you to use banks any more; we want you to use automatic teller machines or, even better from our point of view, we want to completely hand over this part of banking to the supermarkets and get you using the EFTPOS.' It is my view that automatic teller machines represent an unsatisfactory alternative for many older people who are uncomfortable with the technology and also uncomfortable with the security. There have been a number of reports of people being assaulted and robbed at automatic teller machines, whereas it is, of course, much more difficult for people to hang around bank branches waiting for customers to come out. The security issues are important issues.Not only have the banks been progressively closing their branches and providing a lesser standard of customer service; it is also the case that they have been hitting us ever harder with fees and charges. Indeed, some of the reports about lowering of interest rates, particularly spouted by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), are in fact belied by some of the facts. We have had drawn to the opposition's attention recently the case of Gerard White, a farmer in Ballarat, who had a Commonwealth Bank rural loan which was reviewed every two years—due to be reviewed in April this year—with a two-year rate of 9.6 per cent. The bank contacted him in January and said it would be willing to refinance his loan but under what they call a `better business loan' with an interest rate of 12.52 per cent. So, for him, his rates increased by of the order of 50 per cent.Similarly, as housing interest rates have fallen, banks have been raiding fees and charges. Under this Treasurer (Mr Costello), who is taking no interest in the issue of monitoring fees and charges, this has gone on to new and ever higher points where banks are earning billions of dollars. It is said that $1 in every $3 earned by the major banks now comes from fees, with more than 200 different charges. We have seen account-keeping fees up to $7 a week, branch withdrawals up to $1, overuse of ATMs up to 45c a transaction, EFTPOS use up to $1.25, dishonoured cheques from $12 to as high as $35 and special cheque clearance from $8 to $15. It was reported in the Financial Review in February that, last year, the banks made $6.3 billion in fees and charges. This is simply not good enough and the public is entitled to much better treatment from the banks. (Time expired)Motion (by Mrs Bishop) put:That the question be now put.20:38:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)74Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Jull, D. F. 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. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.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.44Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Rocher, A. C. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Business285920:41:002859Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence: just for the information of members, we currently have about 40 to 45 minutes of House business which is before us, which we propose to proceed to in the normal manner. During that 40- to 45-minute period, we will make a further assessment of progress in the Senate. Once we have been able to make that assessment of progress in the Senate, I will have discussions with the Manager of Opposition Business and we will make a statement to the House.I think most members, if it is possible, would like to see the House sit as late as is necessary to complete matters. But we will only be able to assess that as time progresses in the Senate. Given that we have matters currently before the House, we propose to go through those in the usual manner. We will get back to you in 45 minutes, or thereabouts, and give you an update so that we then know whether there is any prospect of, or any value in, us sitting tonight.The indications have been that it looks like we will be here tomorrow. But we certainly want to avoid that, if we can. We will also have to make a decision about a start-up time for tomorrow morning. I will inform members at that time.Bills2859r4652859Consideration resumed.Message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.2859Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2859r4662859Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2859Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills28592859Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2859Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4812860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4792860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4752860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4732860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4692860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2860r4712860Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2860Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2861r4772861Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2861Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2861r4622861Consideration resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2861Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bishop) read a third time.Bills2861r4212861Consideration resumed from 2 April.20:52:002861Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 is about two things: first, it is an attack on trade unions, using the same malice that has motivated the government to orchestrate the sacking of 1,400 workers today from the waterfront; second, it is about giving the banks bigger profits, letting the banks in on the superannuation action. If that is not the intention of the government, what is in it for them? If this is not what you are on about, why not adopt our model? We have put forward a model which will provide for genuine employee choice, not forced employer choice. What we see is a government which is hell-bent on pushing through its legislation without support from workers, without support from employers and without support from the superannuation industry.The first amendment we are moving to this legislation involves a revised definition of `industry based fund'. We want to replace the government's definition of `industry based fund' with a definition which more accurately reflects what a true industry based fund is. This amendment will apply only in the case where an employer chooses to offer his or her employees a choice of four funds. It does that by requiring a fund which seeks to qualify as an industry based fund under this definition to be a not for profit fund which operates purely in the best interests of the members of that fund.Many different types of superannuation funds exist in the market. Labor supports that level of market diversity in the interests of allowing informed consumers to choose where possible and also in the interests of driving down fees and charges. Some funds are owned by publicly listed companies which are accountable to shareholders. Those shareholders invest in their chosen company with the expectation of a return on their investment. That return may be funded in part by the fees and charges that a company levies on those who invest their superannuation moneys with them. By contrast, most industry funds do not operate on the basis of providing a return to shareholders who may or may not have a superannuation interest in the company. Instead, most industry funds operate on a not for profit basis, which sees most of their returns given back to members of the fund, not to outside or arms-length shareholders.Essentially, there are three elements of an industry based fund: they operate on a not for profit basis, in that the trustee, shareholder and beneficial owners do not make a profit out of the fund; they all meet the equal representation requirements, that is, equal representation of employers and employees, set out in the SIS legislation; and they have two or more employer sponsors. Under the government's definition of industry funds, other types of funds which bear little resemblance to an industry fund would fall within the definition, including some master trust type products. The government's definition could mean that, under the choice of four funds model, an employee may not get access to a genuine industry fund with all the excellent features of such a fund. We are not proposing that other funds, including the master trust type funds, be excluded under our proposed amendment. We are not proposing that at all. It is just that they would not be able to occupy the `industry fund' definition.I have indicated to the House on a previous occasion that research done on master trusts appeared in Personal Investment magazine in December of last year. It went through 65 major master trusts and one industry fund and had a look at the end benefits after 20 years. Guess which one of the 65 master trusts and one industry fund performed best? It was the industry fund. That industry fund's super had the highest projected outcome, being over $100,000 above the average master trust and over $200,000 above the lowest master trust.Without access to the industry funds, which have been critical in driving down fees and charges and expenditure on advertising and other overheads and introducing real competition into the superannuation industry—we have a government that talks about competition, which, in fact, is exactly what the industry funds have been providing—we may see a circumstance where funds' capacity to be involved in future superannuation activities is diminished. That is something that I think would not be in the interests of workers themselves.One of the things that we are most concerned about in this area relates to the key features statements. (Extension of time granted) What we need is comparable products so that people can work out which superannuation fund provides the best value for money. But it is one where the government so far has failed to provide us with information which gives us any assurance whatsoever that they have this under control and that real and valuable information will be provided.I was given an example of a person with an MLC rollover deferred annuity. This person, I can assure the House, is extremely financially literate and would be exactly the kind of person who would be interested in making a choice when the choice option becomes available. He talks about having received an annual statement for the period 31 December 1996 to 31 December 1997. Of course, we are all interested in what management fees the funds are charging. His statement said:The fixed component of 1.32 per cent per annum, is retained by MLC Limited, to cover the ongoing costs of administering and servicing your investment.He rang them up with a pretty simple question. He wanted to know whether that 1.32 per cent per annum related to the earnings of the fund in that particular year, whether it related to his whole investment or whether we were talking about the interest rate which his balance had achieved less 1.32 per cent. Nobody was able to tell him. Trying to find out what the management fee was apparently went on for a period of some years.Eventually, after letters and finally getting hold of the chief executive officer, he had further correspondence which showed that the 1.32 per cent per annum was being charged on his whole balance. Indeed, that was not the only fee; there was a variable component fee of a further 0.33 per cent. When the full sums were done by this person, he found that they were charging him in the order of $577 per annum on earnings of $3,400. That is pretty steep, I would have thought.The more serious point was that he was simply unable to find out from MLC on what basis these management fees were being charged. Given his level of interest in these things, it strikes me that, if he was not able to do it, it would simply not be possible for the vast majority of workers to be able to find out from these kinds of investments just what the management fees are going to be or just what the exit fees are going to be. I indicated to the House previously examples of exit fees of enormous magnitude being charged and eating up the account balances.I have been provided with a couple of additional examples: one on an FAI account balance of $5,163, with an exit fee of $2,444; that is to say, eating up 47 per cent of the investment. One with Norwich, on an account balance of $3,888, had an exit fee of $2,648—68 per cent of the balance. One with National Mutual, $6,001, had an exit fee of $3,696, with fees eating up 61 per cent of the balance. Finally, one with AMP, amongst these that takes the cake, an account balance of $4,318, with an exit fee of $3,157, or 73 per cent.Those kinds of management fees and exit fees to my mind are outrageous, but that is the kind of practice we can expect to see creeping back into the market, creeping back into the superannuation industry, unless we have the industry based fund option there to keep the other options honest. That is why we have moved our amendment and we believe that, if the government were fair dinkum about genuine employee choice, it would be supporting that amendment.I wish to move on to amendments 2 and 10, which talk about removal of clause 32U, which overrides federal awards. These two amendments operate effectively together. Amendment 10 removes the clause 32U, which is the somewhat bizarre clause that overrides federal awards, and amendment 2 inserts the words `federal award' or `territory award' into the government's definition of what contributions satisfy choice of fund legislation. Because the government has chosen such a convoluted and complex way—(Time expired)21:02:002863Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I just want to seek from the opposition just how long Kelvin would like to continue to speak on this. We would like to get through this legislation tonight if we could. We are willing to work with the opposition, but I just wonder whether it is possible for him to keep his comments, say, to within the next five minutes.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—It is not my intention to speak all night, but I do not think the points we need to make and ought to make on such a serious bill can reasonably be made in a debate of five minutes. It seems to me that there are a number of such intervals that would be required in order to properly raise our views and the reasons we are putting forward the amendments we are.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I do not know whether that answers the parliamentary secretary's question.21:04:002863Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In relation to amendments 2 and 10, what we are endeavouring to do here is to take out clause 32U, where the government is endeavouring to override awards. It has also introduced another bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 , which we have also been debating. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation examined this issue and found that it created great confusion. The Senate committee, on page 86 of its contribution, asked a number of questions. For example: would section 32U affect the frequency with which contributions are remitted? Would the superannuation guarantee provisions or the award provisions prevail? That sort of issue needs to be clarified by the minister. If we are not able to get clarification tonight, it is certainly the sort of issue that needs to be clarified in the Senate. So we can clarify whether, for example, the effects of section 32U extend beyond nominating a particular fund for the purposes of an award prior to consideration of this bill in the Senate.It also ought to be said that the government's attempt to override clause 32U is incredibly hypocritical. Clause 32T, the clause before clause 32U, for those on the other side, says that awards will not be overridden for the purposes of determining notional earnings bases on which to base an employee's superannuation contributions. The reason is that employers will lose the basis on which to determine an employee's salary for superannuation purposes because it is contained in awards. That would mean that some employees could choose a fund which would actually require greater contributions than employees are receiving at the moment, and that would cost employers.The government has decided to fix this by inserting a clause which says that even though the award no longer applies for superannuation purposes, let us pretend that it still does so employers do not have to pay anyone any more than they currently do. So clause 32U says the award does not apply any more, but clause 32T says the award still applies. Our amendment lets the government off the hook by deleting the clause which overrides awards.On amendment 2 we observe that simply deleting clause 32U from the bill would mean that some employers could be in breach of both the superannuation guarantee legislation and the current choice regime amendments at the same time. Therefore, we have included the awards in the section of the choice legislation which allows employers to comply with this legislation by simply complying with their industrial award.After all, the government allows employers who negotiate a different type of industrial agreement other than award, that is, a certified agreement and an Australian workplace agreement, to fulfil the choice of fund requirements. Why then won't the government allow compliance through an industrial award which is also an agreement between employers and employees? Our amendments better reflect the demand for choice, whereas what the government is doing is simply endeavouring to give the banks a leg up.Amendment 3 goes to the extension of the start date of choice 2—1 July 2000—for new and existing employees. The whole superannuation industry has been calling out for this. We have seen newspaper reports just in the last day or two confirming that that is the view of the superannuation industry. We saw it in the Four Corners report, where they called for the start date to be extended. We have seen an editorial in the Australian calling for this. Frankly, the government ought to welcome this proposal. With an election coming up soon, I would be surprised if it actually wanted officers of the tax office bearing down on thousands of employers who do not know anything about choice, let alone understand what is expected of them in relation to it.Our amendment clarifies confusion between different start dates for new and existing employees. It will allow a full education campaign to be run which will allay employer fears as well as allow employees to make an informed choice. It will also allow the government to consider adopting the opposition's model, which is about genuine employee choice rather than employer choice. What we need first is a situation where you get real choice within funds, rather than just the same four options given to you. (Extension of time granted) Then you have an arrangement, as applies in New South Wales and Queensland, where employees can move their money from the superannuation fund that it is in to a different superannuation fund, if they see fit to do so, on their initiative. It is not forced on them. But, if they think that is the way to go, then they have a capacity to do it.Amendments 4 to 6, which we have moved, relate to the default fund issue. Default funds should not be a product to which commissions are payable. I think the reason for this was made very clear by the Four Corners program last Monday night in which the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) performed so well. That reason is the disaster which befell the United Kingdom when it tried to introduce choice. The Senate committee on superannuation received evidence which showed that some 570,000 people were sold inappropriate products, many of which were commission based products, which saw a compensation bill of more than $10 billion. Should that sort of thing happen here, it would be disastrous. Many people who do not choose a fund will end up in a default fund. ASFA has estimated that more than 40 per cent of the seven million Australians with superannuation accounts will not make an active choice. I think it could be even larger than that. What that means is that those employees will end up in a default fund.What our amendment means is that the default fund will not be one which is sold to an employer, who is forced by this legislation to choose the default fund at the risk of severe financial penalty, on a commission basis. Commission based products are generally more expensive to enter and exit and to manage via ongoing fees and charges, as I have indicated previously. Labor's amendment is about better consumer protection for those who do not currently have the appropriate level of understanding concerning this issue.I move to amendments 8 and 9. These two amendments are also related to the commission based sales issue. They achieve the same purpose as the previous amendment, except that the outlawing of commission based sales is also extended to employees who do make a choice. Protecting employees from the government's forced choice model is our ultimate aim because, unlike the government, we have not forgotten that superannuation is really about retirement incomes. The evidence is that, if this legislation proceeds, workers will end up with lower retirement incomes. People who do make a choice under the government's regime should be protected in the same way as those who do not.This amendment will prevent commission based sales of products which receive superannuation contributions. This was an issue which was covered in some detail by the Senate select committee. The government majority report of that committee contained an important section on commission driven selling, where William Mercer Pty Ltd supplied the committee with information about the costs of switching superannuation funds in Chile. They pointed out that 29 per cent of fund members in Chile switched funds in the year ending June 1997. Around 30 per cent of the fund members changed. A lot of that switching is triggered by sales people who are paid whenever a member switches funds. Approximately 38 per cent of the entire cost of managing Chile's superannuation system is related to costs associated with fund switching. Clearly that is something that is not in the interests of the retirement incomes of those members. So in our view it is a clear-cut issue. Commission based selling ought to be outlawed.I regret the fact that the government is indicating that it is not interested in a more detailed consideration of these issues. I think they are important issues. The opposition is most concerned that the government wants to start this up on 1 July against a background where many employees are unaware, blissfully ignorant, that that choice is about to descend upon them. Many employers are bliss fully ignorant of this. The industry is not ready for it. We do not have in place a mechanism for dispute resolution. We have the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal under a cloud.So, for all those reasons, we believe our amendments need to be supported. Therefore we will be pressing them now by seeking a division on them. But we will also be pressing them in the Senate, because we believe these amendments are the minimum needed in order for the choice model to be successful rather than to be a disaster for workers.21:14:002865Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I will make some very general comments to the amendments which have been moved. But I will not be able to go into detail, because of the time that has already been taken. The government will not be supporting the opposition's amendments to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 . It is clear that the opposition amendments are all about denying Australian workers the choice of superannuation funds. This really is the Labor Party's agenda, similar to what the agenda was many years ago when these other funds which the Labor Party set up came in.I would, however, like to make a short statement about the start date for choice of funds with respect to new employees. The bill specifies a start date of 1 July 1998 for the choice of fund with respect to new employees. This start date was announced in the May budget last year. However, it is now clear that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) will not be passed in this sitting of parliament.Accordingly, passage will not happen until some time after 12 May. In these circumstances the government considers that the 1 July 1998 start date will not be achievable. Accordingly, the government will be moving an amendment in the Senate delaying the start date when the bill is debated in the Senate. The government is giving urgent consideration to the most appropriate new start date.I would like to emphasise that the government remains committed to securing passage of the choice measures as soon as possible. There is very strong support from industry, consumer and employer groups for the details of the legislation and regulation to be settled quickly. I remind the House that this legislation was brought in on I think 4 December last year, so a considerable amount of debate has already been had on this particular legislation.I would like to emphasise that the deferral of the start date for the choice measures will not affect any of the other measures contained in Tax LAB (No. 7). As I said, we oppose these amendments which are being proposed by the opposition. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.21:21:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)44Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.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. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.75Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.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. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Jull, D. F.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.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.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.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Holding, A. C. Halverson, R. G.McLeay, L. B. Reid, N. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business286621:24:002866Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to advise members that I have just been over to the Senate to attempt some assessment of progress over there.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You're a better man than me, Gunga Din.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The member for Banks!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It makes me uneasy having this lot behind me.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You're safe from us, but not Peter Costello. We took Petro's lead; we like Petro.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks, it could be a long night.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He will have to stand on the bench before he will be a problem to me. The latest estimate from the Senate is that they could be two or three hours yet debating the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . There will then be a four- or five-hour transmission period. We therefore expect that, as soon as these matters before the House are completed, the House will then suspend and we intend to resume as early as possible in the morning. We are just in the process of having discussions with the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) as to what would be the earliest possible hour that we could reasonably start. Without taking a straw poll, at the conclusion of the next division we will announce our joint decision.Bills2867r4212867Consideration resumed.21:27:002867Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move additional amendments Nos 1-3:(1) Schedule 5, item 12, page 47, definition of industry-based superannuation fund, (lines 9-20) omit the definition, substitute: industry-based superannuation fund means a complying fund or complying superannuation scheme that: (a) has 2 or more employer-sponsors; and (b) is a fund which operates on a not-for-profit basis; and (c) complies with section 89(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (basic equal representation rules); or(2) Schedule 5, item 28, page 52 (lines 16-21), omit proposed subsection 32C(2), substitute:Contributions under AWAs, Certified Agreements or Federal or Territory Awards(2) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under or in accordance with, an AWA, a certified agreement under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , a certified agreement under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 , a Commonwealth industrial award, or a Territory industrial award.(3) Schedule 5, item 28, page 53 (lines 10-15), omit paragraphs (4)(a)-(c), substitute "before 1 July 2000".These amendments relate to what are known as third line forcing provisions, and they insert improper conduct provisions into the bill. This was an issue which was considered by the Senate Superannuation Committee, and I will turn to it in a moment. The issue here is really one of protection from improper employer influence. Of particular concern is the possibility that employers will influence the employee's choice of superannuation fund because they themselves are receiving some direct or indirect benefit from the financial institution where the employee's superannuation goes to.It is common knowledge that many small business operators, particularly in regional Australia, have close relationships with their bank manager or their insurance agent. In some cases, that sort of business contact and social contact would be enough to influence the employer to push employees into the company's products. Even more seriously, you could have the situation where someone wants to maintain favourable loan conditions or other incentives. We would be concerned about the situation where someone went to a bank seeking a loan for business purposes and the bank said, `Yes, sure, you can have the loan. Now, what about your workers' super?'It is noteworthy that the legislation does not contain any provision equivalent to section 76A of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act—the RSA Act—which inhibits improper conduct—that is, RSA providers supplying or offering to supply any benefits to employers on condition that employees open RSA accounts or, indeed, refusing to supply or offer such benefits. That is a situation which we are concerned about. It was an issue which was dealt with by the Senate select committee inquiring into superannuation and inquiring into choice of fund. In particular, the committee heard evidence that there was potential for employees to be locked into their employer's fund choices where that fund choice was something in the interests of the employer, rather than in the interests of the employees. In particular, the practice of bundled selling was raised as a potential issue, as was the issue of undisclosed inducements and rewards. Indeed, West Scheme provided an example to the committee in its submission and it submitted that there was evidence within weeks of the Western Australian government's choice of fund legislation of employers being offered financial incentives to meet their choice obligations through a particular service provider.The Consumers Association and several other witnesses put forward the idea that there ought to be strong provisions against deals between employers and product providers. They told the committee that those deals work against the interests of employees and unnecessarily restrict choice. Accordingly, they were of the view that we need to get a clear opinion on whether the existing Trade Practices Act provisions relating to third line forcing are adequate for the protection of employees in such situations.We would be interested in any response we could get from the government on its view about the use of the existing third line forcing provisions in the Trade Practices Act to deal with the situation before us. I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether he is able to advise us on whether the Trade Practices Act provisions relating to third line forcing would be adequate to protect employees from bundled selling. In any even, we think the amendments that we have moved, amendments 1 to 3, make the issue clear and put it beyond doubt. On that basis we think that the House ought to support them.21:31:002868Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—It seems an eternity ago since my remarks were interrupted because of question time some time last week. I must say I do not admire the government for the way it has handled the passage of this legislation, but that is another story. I think at that time I was talking about the remittances required by electronic means and the implications that had for businesses forwarding payments by cheque which hither to have been perfectly normal in terms of commercial transactions in this country. I know it would not fit within the definition, but it is almost to the extent that legal tender is replaced, because of precedents and acceptance, by payment of cheque.I started to say, if I remember how events concluded when we last were debating this issue, that if the government or the Australian Taxation Office have a problem they need only to have the current tax act amended to reinstate the measure which once deemed that payment by cheque had not occurred until the amount of the cheque had actually been collected. The fact that Treasury has not pursued this alternative indicates to me—perhaps wrongly but I do not think so; I will be charitable and say `perhaps wrongly'—that improving the equity of the overall tax system has been superseded rather by another tax grab.In the interim, since we last spoke on this bill to confirm that, I have had correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia, the CCIWA. Amongst other things, whilst they gave credit to the government for its attempt to rationalise and improve the system of remittance, they have the same concerns as me. They talk, in correspondence with me, about the need for clarification and that the first of the clarifications required is why there should be the need for, in many cases in large businesses, remittances of up to two a week.A large entity which makes a PPS or RPS payment on a daily basis, under the proposals before the parliament, will in the future be required to make two remittances per week under the proposed section 220AAE. Some remittances will be required to be made within four working days of the payment; that is, for deductions made on a Tuesday and Friday. They have to make their remittances electronically within four days. That is quite unreasonable and anyone outside the bureaucracy with a knowledge of business and the constraints on it, even in this computer age, would understand what I am talking about. A system which is based on a maximum of one remittance per week surely would be more realistic, although, in my opinion, not all that acceptable. The CCIWA seeks the support of members of this parliament to amend the bill in that way accordingly.A second proposal, which is the move to force large firms to use electronic means of payment of funds to the Australian Taxation Office, absolutely lacks any rational basis. The move to penalise firms that choose to pay by cheque, hitherto totally acceptable and normal in a commercial sense, is questionable at best but stupid at worst. The present proposal, as I understand it, requires large remitters to be obliged to—no choice—remit solely by electronic funds transfer. On top of that, they will be penalised a minimum of $500 per remittance paid by other means. (Extension of time granted)There are proposed to be up to 104 remittances required each year by the large remitters of these tax deductions and prepayments of one sort or another from 1 July 1998. That means a minimum potential liability of $52,000 per year for large employers who choose to pay by cheque. I emphasise again that that was previously perfectly acceptable and normal commercial practice. Irrespective of whether those payments are received and cleared by the Australian Taxation Office within the desired time limit, for large remitters with only PAYE obligations the minimum penalty would be $26,000 where they pay salary on a weekly basis or $13,000 where they pay salary fortnightly.You have the situation that the relevant part of the legislation proposed in 221AAW does not seek to penalise late remitters, it seeks to penalise large remitters who choose to use some other more normal and commercially acceptable mode of payment such as a cheque. To put it another way, they are seeking to make it an offence to use other than normal and commercially accepted modes of payment. The justification, as far as I can tell—I might be wrong on this—is that some large remitters may seek to defer payment by delivering a cheque on the due date of payment knowing that it will take some time for the cheque to be cleared. If this is a genuine concern—and I ask the question sincerely—then surely the answer would be, as I remarked earlier before this debate was interrupted, to make the offence rely upon the failure of the payment to have been cleared by the end of the day—that is, the due date of payment. That is a relatively simple matter and not unprecedented. Former regulation 60 of the income tax regulations, which, incidentally, were repealed in 1994 under the previous government, provided that payment by cheque was not deemed to have been made until the amount of the cheque had been collected. Such a regulation would surely be sufficient to overcome supposed mischief, at which proposed section 221AAW is aimed.This proposal seems to be aimed at shifting the ATO's administrative costs onto the large business sector. That is plainly unacceptable. In another context it might even be said to be discriminatory. If there is to be a penalty then surely there must be an offence. An offence in this case is missing. The proposed section will penalise withholders who have complied with all their obligations and remitted cheques in payment of tax in sufficient time to enable the Australian Taxation Office to clear those cheques. In such a circumstance I submit to the parliament and to any reasonable person listening that there is no offence. Yet there is a penalty attached. The proposal may also be unconstitutional in that if there is no offence the penalty may amount to the levying of a tax. I do not know whether that has crossed the minds of the government, the advisers in the box, the bureaucracy generally, the ATO or Treasury. But it is my understanding that a tax bill may impose tax or levy tax, but not both. That seems to be a criterion which is missing in this case. (Extension of time granted)The area requiring clarification is whether the three types of obligations covered by the proposed measures—that is PAYE, PPS or RPS—would be required to be amalgamated or whether they should be paid separately. It is not clear. Amalgamated payments would cause greater compliance costs for businesses given that payroll is usually handled by a part of a particular large organisation that is different from the part that handles PPS or RPS. On the other hand, if payments are meant to be made separately this could and will, I suspect, substantially increase the penalties. Potentially they could be more than double and possibly treble the number and amount of penalties to which each large remitter is exposed. Equally, the four payments specified in the proposed section 220AE are treated as separate remittances for penalty purposes even though the legislation suggests that they would normally be amalgamated into two payments. The potential minimum penalty referred to earlier of $52,000 per annum would double to something like $104,000 per annum. It is hardly a hanging offence. I offer the opinion that in the circumstances $104,000 is tantamount to a hanging offence.Since the government announced its amendments, and given the unintentional—nevertheless helpful—elapse of time that has occurred since I last addressed this question in the debate on the detail stage, I have had correspondence from the Taxation Institute of Australia. The TIA has in great depth conveyed to me—and I hope to others; but if not at least to me—that the amendments foreshadowed by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) on 9 March as they affect division 7A have very real defects.The bill itself has been the subject of a hearing—as you may or may not know, Mr Deputy Speaker—before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which was due to report only yesterday. We are debating legislation in this place without the benefit of the outcome of that hearing. I know I have had something to say quite recently about whether the Senate should be conducting inquiries on matters before the House of Representatives which would warrant their assuming that the legislation is going to be passed by the House of Representatives unamended. I simply acknowledge that there is a difficulty with that. But the point in this case is that that committee is in fact deliberating. I do not know whether it has handed down its report, but given that it was conducting hearings only yesterday I would have to suspect that it has not.In the event, here we are in the House of Representatives in the detail stage of a complex bill of nine or 10 separate and disparate measures talking about a measure which is under active consideration and, by dint of the activities of the relevant Senate committee, that committee is considering the very matters which are of concern to me and to my constituents and, above all, to the Taxation Institute of Australia. The TIA has given evidence to that committee and, of course, it was critical, as am I, of certain aspects of the bill, particularly the deficiency in consultation in relation to the proposed changes to division 7A. (Extension of time granted) The TIA is still of, and I am still of—Mrs Sullivan interjecting—ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—The honourable member for Moncrieff and the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) might be having trouble following the argument and I can understand their humour. I am having trouble following it myself, but that is not because I do not understand it but because of the stupid way your government conducts the legislative program in this chamber. But that is not your fault, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is certainly not the member for Moncrieff's fault or, indeed, that of the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister.The TIA remains of the view, as I do, that division 7A and schedule 8 of this bill, which refers to the anti-dividend streaming and anti-avoidance provisions, should be excised from the bill and subjected to rigorous debate to ensure that the provisions do not continue to create compliance problems with Australian businesses. The continuing problems with division 7A have been tabulated by the Taxation Institute of Australia, but only as a result of the late last minute amendments introduced, in conjunction with the detail stage of this bill, by the government. I have to say, once again, that they have not had time to consider them but have done a remarkable job in analysing and dissecting clause by clause the need to put this legislation into some sort of sensible form.I do not want to pursue that any more. I think I have made the point, but I am not sure that it will be registered by my colleagues. Although I understand the very sincere attitude of the parliamentary secretary, I think he has been underinformed and misinformed or whatever it is by the bureaucracy in this circumstance.I want to revisit schedule 5, because there was something I said before the debate was adjourned at question time a week or two ago. I was talking about superannuation accounts in schedule 5 and the treatment of them for tax purposes. I want to add some remarks about the situation of casually employed individuals who have several separate superannuation accounts—and there are many hundreds of thousands of such accounts, and perhaps they are in the millions, I am not sure—with only very small balances in each. The predicament and interests of those people could be resolved under the terms of this legislation.Current estimates put the number of accounts which form part of the ATO's `lost member fund facility' at around $1.5 million, amounting to approximately $1.5 billion in benefits that employees have failed to claim. That is a significant figure, and that money is sloshing around in the system somewhere. I do not know where it is, but I think the ATO is rubbing its hands because it is going to cop that sooner or later.While the coalition is right to implement legislation that will improve the portability of superannuation entitlements, and I have already acknowledged that, it seems to me that the government is all too prepared to neutralise the full benefits of the initiative in its attempt to push the bill through this parliament. That is regrettable, but not exceptional, unfortunately. At a time when the government has set in place a number of initiatives that it hopes will facilitate improved levels of national savings and investment, the new tax treatment of franking dividends will have the opposite effect. I am on record as having asked the Treasurer (Mr Costello) a question today, and I am somewhat reassured by his reply, but the trouble is, and I have said it earlier—(Time expired)21:51:002871Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—There are signals abroad that when we finish debate on the bill we will be able to leave the place, which acts as a considerable temptation to me and, I hope, the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). Indeed, in the spirit of cooperation we will not pursue this issue to a division, but we do want to indicate our intention to insist on the matter when it comes before the Senate. We might even get so excited about it that we feel the need to divide on it now.The point I do want to make is that the government has announced that it is going to delay the implementation of choice of fund and that it has indeed backed down on its proposal to introduce it on 1 July. That is welcome. As I indicated a few minutes ago, it is clear that employees, employers and the superannuation industry are not ready for choice to be implemented now and that the government has finally realised that it has a disaster in the making. What is unsatisfactory, however, is that the parliamentary secretary did not indicate a date to which the choice of fund would be deferred. I assume that he was not hiding anything, so that means that the government has not decided when it is going to introduce choice of fund.Clearly, that is not a satisfactory situation for the superannuation industry or for employers to be operating under, and it is necessary for the government to set this matter right by nominating a date on which choice of fund will in fact be introduced. Otherwise, it just gives the impression that what they are trying to do is to slide past this issue on their way to an election and then resurrect the issue once the election is over. That is simply not good enough. People have a right to know when choice of fund is proposed to be introduced. We believe they should move to our proposal, 1 July 2000. We have argued it strongly. It is in line with many of the submissions that have been coming forward and many of the concerns that have been expressed. While they are at it, they should consider our choice of fund model, which is a better model.Having said that, I think that we have made the points that we want to make in relation to third line forcing and that the government ought to be making sure that there are appropriate protections against employers entering into these kinds of arrangements where the benefit is to the employer rather than to the employee. 21:55:002872Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I am interested that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) should interrupt me when I am in full flow. He made an interesting intervention. I am of a different opinion and, when the debate in the detail stage was conducted earlier, I indicated that 12 months beyond 1 July 1998—and that is, of course, till 1 July 1999—would be sufficient to inform the electorate and the populace at large about the intricacies and the considerations which they should each take when they are adopting choice of funds. I suppose we are only talking about an additional year, but I do not think you have to go the extra year to the year 2000.I was about to talk about this being the time when the government has set in place a number of initiatives it hopes will facilitate improved levels of national savings investment. The tax treatment of franking dividends will have the opposite effect. I had already acknowledged the answer to a question of mine today by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), for which I was grateful. I thought it was a very good answer, given the intricacy and detailed knowledge which was required of the Treasurer to give that answer to a question without notice. In the addition subsequently to that answer I was entirely satisfied and reassured.But, when I am speaking about franking credits, as are others, one Perth expert described how the persons who will bear the `punishment' of this move will be the shareholder rather than the company. I think I am reassured by the Treasurer. However, past practice leads me to believe that the Australian Taxation Office, and the Deputy Commissioner in particular, tend to disregard answers to detailed questions which convey the will of the government in this place when they come down with their tax rulings, tax determinations and potential discretionary decisions which, unfortunately, the tax commissioner has been given, either deliberately or by default.The sentiment I am touching on has been seconded by Mr Jon Kirkwood, who I mentioned earlier in the debate, and people who care to look will know who I am talking about. He stated:The paranoia in Treasury, and/or the ATO, regarding franking credits is now so extreme that innocent taxpayers are brushed aside in the endeavour to trap the very few `players' left in the game.Enough should be enough, surely. How is it that the coalition government is prepared to sanction moves that punish small investors? If the government has concerns about abuses of franking arrangements—and I remind members that it is yet to provide any substantial evidence about such abuse—then, to borrow a metaphor from the Treasurer, the tax net should be cast wide enough to catch the sharks but not the dolphins. Those are not my words but the Treasurer's; some time ago, I admit, and when in opposition.The application of the related payments provisions to franking credits is another thing that needs to be reviewed by the government. Under this provision, if a husband and wife buy shares in the same company but quite independently of each other and one decides to sell his or her shares during the 45-day holding period, again quite independently of their partner, the second partner would lose an ability to utilise the franking credits because of the supposed related interest. Perhaps the Treasurer or the parliamentary secretary at the table would care to explain exactly why it should be that someone should lose this tax benefit, despite meeting the `incidental purpose threshold', simply because of their marital status. That seems to me quite out of tune with modern thinking. (Extension of time granted) The financial impact statement of this section—rather, the lack of information contained in it—is also deserving of mention. Page 5 of the explanatory memorandum, in part, reads:The amendments are a part of a package of measures targeting franking credit trading and dividend streaming that will protect the revenue base. In the absence of the measures, to the extent that the revenue base would not be protected, there would be a significant revenue loss. The measures will result in—I am quoting accurately and I emphasise `unquantifiable revenue gains'—unquantifiable revenue gains, to the extent of existing tax minimisation. Apparently, the government believes it is enough to say that the abuse of franking credits is severely undermining national revenue without providing any figures that support such a claim. On page 94 of the explanatory memorandum, the government suggests that the changes proposed in schedule 8 will `restore underlying principles of the imputation system'.It is in that light that the government needs to be reminded that up to 35 per cent of franking credits in Australia are unused because many shareholders receiving them are either non-residents, are non-taxable or are taxed at low rates. The imputation system is supposed to bring about greater efficiencies in the capital market. Clearly, the Australian market is not as efficient as it could be, otherwise the full value of franking credits would be realised.We all know that this is not the first time that Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office have led a joint attack on legitimate tax effective measures, on the basis that they are being abused, without first—or ever—providing any information on the actual cost to revenue of the measure being reviewed. This is not a matter of a one-off oversight on the part of those who drafted this legislation. There is a definite pattern of behaviour forming here, whereby radical or even moderately less than radical—if there is such a term—reforms are being justified on the grounds of widespread rorting without any evidence to support such claims. I have seen it before: I saw it in the terms of the Fraser government; I have seen it, without much evidence, in the terms of the Hawke and Keating governments.Every other proposal in this bill has been costed, and this information is set out clearly in the explanatory memorandum, yet for the single most significant—certainly the most controversial—measure, the government has failed to provide the vital information that would lend support to the proposed changes. It is a given, I suggest, that those on the government side of the chair will endorse this measure when their vote is needed, but how anyone could do that in the absence of accurate costing is simply beyond me. The omis sion of an actual dollar amount in the financial impact statement renders the whole point of having a financial impact statement totally irrelevant.For a government supposedly committed to a charter of budget honesty—which I totally support—and fiscal transparency, which I also support, it appears to me to be pretty comfortable with providing a minimum of data when it suits. That might be by design or accuracy; it might be by error or omission on the part of the people who advise it, but the government is ultimately responsible.It is worth remembering that the whole imputation system evolved with a built-in safety mechanism: that is, imputation has never needed to be capped because it is directly proportional to the amount of tax being paid by Australian businesses. The catalyst for the introduction of the imputation system, some 10 years ago, was to stamp out the anti-business practice of double taxation of company profits. (Extension of time granted)As was pointed out by journalists contributing to the 12-13 July 1997 edition of the Weekend Australian, the crucial effect of this legislation is to eliminate the tax bias towards debt instruments which had been an integral factor in the spectacular boom and bust of the late 1980s. In a letter to the Australian Financial Review in November last, Mr Tony Rumble from ATAX at the University of New South Wales also mentioned that fact and suggested:True reform would seriously examine abandoning the tax difference between debt and equity. Such a solution would take the heat out of the difficulties with the imputation system.Clearly, the government is prepared to avoid such a necessary review or reconsideration. The most critical issue in this debate about the tax treatment of franking credits is that imputation only exists because someone has already met their taxation obligations. Despite what the Treasurer and the government would have us believe from time to time, nowhere was it ever said that the benefits of imputation should only go to the economic owner of the share. The Taxation Institute of Australia has forecast that one advantage of the imputation system is that the perception of the value of imputation credits and the way that this encourages companies to pay Australian tax could well be lost. I do not think that has sunk in with anyone who has contributed to this debate. I regret that, if my assumption is correct.If companies choose instead to pay higher cash dividends with no franking, thereby returning to the old days of avoiding Australian tax, there could well be a substantial reduction in the revenue collected by the Australian Taxation Office. Nothing I have heard in this debate, in the supporting papers, in the parliamentary secretary's second reading speech or in the speeches of others involved in this debate reassures me on these points.In closing, the way the legislation has been brought on tonight—with the lack of advice and pure chance which enabled me to take part in this debate without any information from anyone in this place—leaves me to wonder just what drives this government. I know that in times of need and when time is running short—and that is not the case tonight because we were waiting on some dreary results from another place—that is not always a fact.But I was totally uninformed that this debate was to be brought on at this time. I have read the blues and checked carefully. I regret the fact that I was not able to be here when the debate resumed. I resent the fact that the government has kept a member of this place—and it does not matter that he or she may be interested or not—in the dark as to what they propose to do. It brings no credit on the government.22:10:002874Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I say to the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) that this was indicated on the blues. The only other thing I can say is that the member for Curtin certainly had an extensive speech and if he had been given more time I am not sure if we would have got up tonight.I will make a few comments about the amendments which were moved by the opposition in regard to third line forcing. That is what most of the amendments relate to. The government will be opposing these amendments. The government has only just seen the amendments recently and has not had an opportunity to examine them fully.We understand the amendments are based on a similar provision in the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997. The history with that provision, which was initially raised as a Senate amendment, was that there was at first some confusion about the technical operation of the provision, which resulted in some redrafting. We would accordingly want to be sure about the operation of this provision.More generally, it is not clear whether such a provision is warranted in the context of the broad choice of fund regime we are now debating, as opposed to the narrow choice arrangements which are contained in the RSA Act. It may be noted that in respect of the RSAs and the RSA providers—for example, the banks—the provisions of section 78 of the RSA Act will continue to operate.Lastly, in respect of providers of superannuation products to employers who are not covered by award superannuation obligations, they have long maintained a relationship without a provision of this kind without any evidence of detriment to the relevant employees. Hence, the need for the provision is unclear. As I said, the government does not support these amendments. We are actually opposing the amendments.Amendments negatived.22:12:002874Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—by leave—I move amendments Nos 1-83:(1) Schedule 3, item 9, page 7 (line 5), omit "it objectives", substitute "its objectives".(2) Schedule 3, item 15, page 8 (line 5), omit "object", substitute "objectives".(3) Schedule 3, item 15, page 8 (line 14), omit "objects", substitute "objectives".(4) Schedule 3, item 15, page 8 (line 20), omit "object", substitute "objectives".(5) Schedule 3, item 17, page 12 (line 4), omit "1.5", substitute "1.5A, 1.5B". (6) Schedule 5, page 46 (after line 26), after item 9, insert:9A Subsection 6(1) Insert: defined benefit superannuation scheme has the meaning given by section 6A.9B Subsection 6(1) Insert: defined benefit member means a member entitled on retirement to be paid a benefit defined, wholly or in part, by reference to either or both of the following: (a) the amount of the member's salary: (i) at the date of the member's retirement or an earlier date; or (ii) averaged over a period before retirement; (b) a specified amount.(7) Schedule 5, page 47 (after line 2), after item 10, insert:10A Subsection 6(1) Insert: exempt public sector superannuation scheme has the same meaning as in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 .(8) Schedule 5, item 21, page 49 (after line 28), after paragraph (b), insert: and (c) section 19A (which deals with certain cases where no contributions are required) does not apply to the employer in respect of the employee in respect of the scheme for the quarter;(9) Schedule 5, page 50 (after line 21), after item 21, insert:21A After section 19 Insert:19A Scheme in surplus or member has accrued maximum benefit (1) This section applies to an employer in respect of an employee in respect of a defined benefit superannuation scheme for a quarter if the employee is a defined benefit member of the scheme and either subsection (2) or (3) is satisfied. Scheme in surplus (2) This subsection is satisfied if: (a) an actuary has provided a certificate in accordance with regulations under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 stating that the employer is not required to make contributions for the quarter and there has been such a certificate covering all times since 1 July 2000; and (b) an actuary has provided a certificate stating that, in the actuary's opinion, at all times from 1 July 2000 until the end of the quarter, the assets of the scheme are, and will be, equal to or greater than 110% of the greater of the scheme's liabilities in respect of vested benefits and the scheme's accrued actuarial liabilities. The certificate under paragraph (b) must have been provided no earlier than 15 months before the end of the quarter. Member has accrued maximum benefit (3) This subsection is satisfied if, after the start of the quarter, the defined benefit that has accrued to the employee will not increase other than: (a) as a result of increases in the employee's salary or remuneration; or (b) by reference to accruals of investment earnings; or (c) by reference to indexation based on, or calculated by reference to, a relevant price index or wages index; or (d) in any other way prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. Meaning of scheme's accrued actuarialliabilities and scheme's liabilities in respect of vested benefits (4) In this section: scheme's accrued actuarial liabilities , at a particular time, means the total value, as certified by an actuary, of the future benefit entitlements of members of the scheme in respect of membership up to that time based on assumptions about future economic conditions and the future of matters affecting membership of the scheme, being assumptions made in accordance with applicable professional actuarial standards (if any). scheme's liabilities in respect of vested benefits , at a particular time, means the total value of the benefits payable from the scheme to which the members of the scheme would be entitled if they all voluntarily terminated their service with their employers at that time.(10) Schedule 5, item 28, page 52 (after line 21), after subsection (2), insert: Contributions under certain Victorian agreements (2A) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under, or in accordance with, an employment agreement that was in force under the Employee Relations Act 1992 of Victoria and which continues to be in operation by virtue of section 515 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .(11) Schedule 5, item 28, page 52 (line 1), after the table row dealing with Division 2, insert: Division 2A Eligible choice funds(12) Schedule 5, item 28, page 53 (after line 5), after subsection 32C(3), insert: Contributions under prescribed legislation (3A) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee at a particular time is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory and the law is prescribed in relation to that time under regulations made for the purpose of this subsection.(13) Schedule 5, item 28, page 53 (after line 28), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Eligible choice funds32CA What funds are eligible choice funds? (1) A fund is an eligible choice fund for an employer at a particular time if: (a) it is a complying superannuation fund at that time; or (b) it is a complying superannuation scheme at that time; or (c) it is an RSA; or (d) at that time, a benefit certificate in relation to the fund is conclusively presumed under section 24, in relation to the employer, to be a certificate in relation to a complying superannuation scheme; or (e) contributions made by the employer to the fund at that time are conclusively presumed under section 25 to be contributions to a complying superannuation scheme. (2) However, a fund ceases to be an eligible choice fund for an employer if the employer requests an employee to obtain, in accordance with section 32QB, a statement in relation to the fund and the employer does not receive the statement before the time specified in that section. 32CB Meaning of funds —includes RSAs and schemes (1) In this Part: fund means: (a) a superannuation fund; and (b) a superannuation scheme; and (c) an RSA. (2) For the purposes of this Part, the holder of an RSA is taken to be a member.(14) Schedule 5, item 28, page 55 (after line 8), at the end of section 32F, add: (4) A fund also ceases to be a chosen fund if the fund ceases to be an eligible choice fund for the employer. This may occur immediately after the fund becomes a chosen fund for the employee.(15) Schedule 5, item 28, page 55 (lines 11 and 12), omit "if, at that time:", substitute "if:".(16) Schedule 5, item 28, page 55 (line 13), before "there", insert "at that time,".(17) Schedule 5, item 28, page 55 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) that time is within 28 days of the employee first commencing employment with the employer.(18) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (line 13), after "fund)", insert "or subsection 32F(4) (chosen fund ceasing to be eligible choice fund)".(19) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (after line 13), at the end of section 32G, add: (6) There is also a default fund for an employee if there ceased to be any chosen fund for the employee because of subsection 32CA(2) (chosen fund ceasing to be an eligible choice fund). There ceases to be a default fund if the employer is required under subsection 32K(2) or (4) to give the employee a choice of funds and the employer does not do this by the time specified in the subsection concerned.(20) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (lines 16 to 18), omit "a complying superannuation fund, a complying superannuation scheme or RSA", substitute "an eligible choice fund for the employer".(21) Schedule 5, item 28, page 56 (lines 31 and 32), omit "complying superannuation fund, complying superannuation scheme or RSA", substitute "eligible choice fund for the employer".(22) Schedule 5, item 28, page 57 (after line 7), after subsection 32H(3), insert: (3A) A fund also ceases to be a default fund if the fund ceases to be an eligible choice fund for the employer. If this occurs, the new default fund is to be determined under subsections (1) and (2) on the basis that the fund that ceased to be a default fund no longer exists.(23) Schedule 5, item 28, page 57 (line 18), after "to employees", insert "under section 32D".(24) Schedule 5, item 28, page 57 (line 25), before "commencing", insert "first".(25) Schedule 5, item 28, page 57 (line 31), before "within", insert ", or has been given a notice under paragraph 32E(1)(b),".(26) Schedule 5, item 28, page 58 (lines 1 to 8), omit subsections (3) and (4), substitute: (3) An employer must also offer a choice of funds to an employee within 28 days of the employer becoming aware that there ceased to be any chosen fund for the employee because of: (a) subsection 32F(3) (employer unable to contribute to fund); or (b) subsection 32F(4) (fund ceasing to be eligible choice fund) (other than where the fund ceases to be an eligible choice fund because of subsection 32CA(2)). (4) An employer must also offer a choice of funds to an employee within 28 days of the employer becoming aware that a fund ceased to be a default fund for the employee because of: (a) subsection 32H(3) (employer unable to contribute to fund); or (b) subsection 32H(3A) (fund ceasing to be eligible choice fund).(27) Schedule 5, item 28, page 59 (lines 10 and 11), omit "a complying superannuation fund, a complying superannuation scheme or an RSA", substitute "an eligible choice fund for the employer".(28) Schedule 5, item 28, page 59 (lines 17 to 20), omit subsection (5), substitute: (5) If there is one or more: (a) standard employer-sponsored funds of which the employer is a standard employer-sponsor and of which the employee is eligible to be a member; or (b) exempt public sector superannuation schemes of which the employee is eligible to be a member as a result of the employee's employment with the employer; at least one of those funds or schemes must be a choice.(29) Schedule 5, item 28, page 60 (lines 1 to 3), omit "complying superannuation fund, complying superannuation scheme or RSA", substitute "eligible choice fund for the employer".(30) Schedule 5, item 28, page 60 (lines 28 to 30), omit subsection 32Q(2).(31) Schedule 5, item 28, page 60 (after line 30), after section 32Q, insert:32QA Limits on funds that may be chosen (1) If the employer has given the employee a limited choice offer under section 32M, the fund chosen by the employee must be one of the choices offered by the employer. (2) If the employer has given the employee an unlimited choice offer under section 32P, the fund chosen by the employee must be an eligible choice fund for the employer at the time that the choice is made.32QB Employer may request notice that fund is complying If the employer has given the employee an unlimited choice offer under section 32P and the employee has chosen a fund, the employer may request the employee to provide to the employer, within 28 days of the request: (a) a written statement of the kind referred to in subsection 24(1) in relation to the fund; or (b) a written statement of the kind referred to in subsection 25(1) in relation to the fund. Note: If the employer does not receive the statement within the time specified, the fund will cease to be an eligible choice fund and will therefore cease to be a chosen fund of the employee.(32) Schedule 5, item 28, page 61 (lines 7 to 14), omit section 32S.(33) Schedule 5, item 30, page 63 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:30 Subsection 53(3) Repeal the subsection.(34) Schedule 5, Part 2, page 63 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add:31A Subsection 62(1) After "employee", insert "unless the RSA is a chosen fund for the employee under Part 3A of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 . (35) Schedule 5, page 64 (after line 13), after item 35, insert:35A Before section 114 Insert:Division 1—Preliminary35B After section 114 Insert:Division 2—Certain information to be given to prospective beneficiaries etc. of superannuation entities114A Information to be given before superannuation interests issued (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), the trustee of a superannuation entity must not, intentionally or recklessly, issue a superannuation interest in the entity to a person unless the trustee is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the person has received documents issued, or authorised to be issued, by the trustee that: (a) contain all the information that the regulations and determinations referred to in section 114D require to be given to the person; and (b) comply with the formal requirements specified in those regulations and determinations. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (2) Despite subsection (1), the trustee does not have to be satisfied that the person has received information that relates to an event or change of circumstances that happened after the trustee received the application for the interest. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the interest is issued pursuant to an application under Part 24 of this Act or Part 9 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 . (4) Subsection (1) does not apply if the interest is issued in circumstances specified in the regulations.114B Information to be given on first occasion when superannuation interests are issued under Part 24, or Part 9 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 When section applies (1) This section applies to the issue of a superannuation interest by the trustee of a superannuation entity (the first trustee ) pursuant to an application under Part 24, or Part 9 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 , if the application is the first application under those Parts made to the trustee by the applicant. For this purpose, the applicant is the trustee of the transferor fund or RSA provider, as the case requires, referred to in section 243 of this Act or section 89 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 . Information to be given (2) The first trustee must not, intentionally or recklessly, issue the superannuation interest unless the first trustee is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the applicant has received documents issued, or authorised to be issued, by the first trustee that: (a) contain all the information that the regulations and determinations referred to in section 114D require to be given to the applicant; and (b) comply with the formal requirements specified in those regulations and determinations. Penalty: 100 penalty units. Change of circumstances etc. (3) Despite subsection (2), the first trustee does not have to be satisfied that the applicant has received information that relates to an event or change of circumstances that happened after the first trustee received the application.114C Information to be given before persons become standard employer-sponsors (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the trustee of a superannuation entity must not, intentionally or recklessly, permit a person to become a standard employer-sponsor of the entity unless the trustee is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the person has received documents issued, or authorised to be issued, by the trustee that: (a) contain all the information that the regulations and determinations referred to in section 114D require to be given to the person; and (b) comply with the formal requirements specified in those regulations and determinations. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (2) Despite subsection (1), the trustee does not have to be satisfied that the person has received information that relates to an event or change of circumstances that happened after the trustee received the person's application to become a standard employer-sponsor of the entity. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person becomes a standard employer- sponsor in circumstances specified in the regulations.114D Regulations and determinations requiring the giving of information (1) For the purposes of sections 114A, 114B and 114C, the regulations may: (a) require that particular information is to be given to persons; and (b) specify formal requirements that documents used to give information to persons must comply with. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Commissioner may, for the purposes of sections 114A, 114B and 114C, by written determination: (a) require that particular information is to be given to persons; and (b) specify formal requirements that documents used to give information to persons must comply with. (3) A determination must not be inconsistent with regulations referred to in subsection (1). (4) A determination is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (5) In this section: formal requirements includes, for example, requirements about layout or type size.114E Documents taken to contain information referred to (1) If: (a) a person has received a document (the received document ) issued, or authorised to be issued, by the trustee of a superannuation entity; and (b) the received document refers to particular information (the referred information ) being contained in another document issued, or authorised to be issued, by the trustee; and (c) the requirements of subsections (2), (3) and (4) are satisfied; then, for the purposes of sections 114A, 114B and 114C, the received document is taken to contain the referred information. (2) The received document must clearly identify: (a) the other document; and (b) the nature of the referred information. (3) The received document must include a statement to the effect that the trustee will provide a copy of the other document, free of charge, to a person who asks for it. (4) The trustee must not have failed or refused to provide a copy of the other document free of charge when asked by the person for a copy of it.Division 3—Miscellaneous(36) Schedule 5, items 44 to 47, page 68 (lines 12 to 21), omit the items, substitute:44 Part 19 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute:Part 19—Public offer entities: provisions relating to superannuation interests45 Paragraph 150(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph.46 Division 3 of Part 19 Repeal the Division.47 Subsection 171(2) Omit "after the issue of the interest", substitute "of the applicant being given a notice in accordance with regulations made for the purpose of this subsection".(37) Schedule 5, page 69 (after line 3), after item 50, insert:50A Section 327 (after paragraph (a) of the definition of modifiable provision ) Insert: (aa) Division 2 of Part 14; or(38) Schedule 5, page 69 (after line 6), after item 51, insert:51A Section 327 (paragraph (c) of the definition of modifiable provision ) After "provision of", insert "that Division or".51B Section 327 (paragraph (a) of the definition of temporarily modifiable provision ) After "Part 1", insert "or Division 3 of Part 14".51C Section 327 (paragraph (b) of the definition of temporarily modifiable provision ) Omit ", 14".(39) Schedule 5, page 69 (after line 10), after item 52, insert:52A Section 327 (paragraph (c) of the definition of temporarily modifiable provision ) Omit "that Division", substitute "either of those Divisions".(40) Schedule 8, item 6, page 79 (line 19), omit "160AQCO ", substitute "160AQCNA ". (41) Schedule 8, item 15, page 82 (line 10), omit "At the end of Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part IIIA ", substitute "After section 160AQCNA ".(42) Schedule 8, item 15, page 82 (line 12), omit "160AQCP ", substitute "160AQCNB ".(43) Schedule 9, item 1, page 95 (line 17), after "109N", insert ", 109NA, 109NB".(44) Schedule 9, item 2, page 96 (line 13), omit "160AQCP", substitute "160AQCNC".(45) Schedule 9, item 2, page 97 (line 24), omit "includes", substitute "means".(46) Schedule 9, item 2, page 97 (line 25), after "payment", insert "to the extent that it is".(47) Schedule 9, item 2, page 97 (line 27), after "amount", insert "to the extent that it is".(48) Schedule 9, item 2, page 97 (after line 31), after subsection (3), insert: Loans are not payments (3A) However, a loan to an entity is not a payment to the entity.(49) Schedule 9, item 2, page 98 (line 6), after "transferee", insert "equals or".(50) Schedule 9, item 2, page 98 (lines 8 and 9), omit "at the end of the year the loans are made ".(51) Schedule 9, item 2, page 98 (line 28), omit "section", substitute "subsection".(52) Schedule 9, item 2, page 98 (after line 32), after subsection (1), insert: Loans treated as dividends in year following that of making (1A) A private company is taken to pay a dividend to an entity at the end of the private company's year of income (the current year ) if: (a) the private company made a loan to the entity during the previous year of income; and (b) it made the loan in the course of a winding-up of the private company by a liquidator; and (c) the loan is not fully repaid by the end of the current year; and (d) either: (i) the entity is a shareholder in the private company, or an associate of such a shareholder, when the loan is made; or (ii) a reasonable person would conclude (having regard to all the circumstances) that the loan is made because the entity has been such a shareholder or associate at some time. Subdivision D (other than section 109R) does not apply to loans covered by this subsection.(53) Schedule 9, item 2, page 101 (line 25), omit the formula, substitute:(54) Schedule 9, item 2, page 102 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of previous year's benchmark interest rate , substitute: current year's benchmark interest rate is the benchmark interest rate for the year of income for which the minimum yearly repayment is being worked out.(55) Schedule 9, item 2, page 102 (line 23), omit "previous".(56) Schedule 9, item 2, page 105 (lines 16 to 22), omit subsection (3), substitute: Forgiveness of loan debt does not give rise to dividend if loan did give rise to dividend (3) A private company is not taken under section 109F to pay a dividend at the end of a year of income because of the forgiveness of an amount of a debt resulting from a loan if, because of the loan, the private company is taken: (a) under section 109D or 109E to pay a dividend at the end of that year or an earlier one; or (b) under subsection 108(1) to pay a dividend on the last day of that year or an earlier one.(57) Schedule 9, item 2, page 106 (line 13), after "assessable", insert "or that are specifically excluded from assessable income".(58) Schedule 9, item 2, page 106 (line 20), omit "section 109N).", substitute "section 109N);".(59) Schedule 9, item 2, page 106 (after line 20), insert:. certain loans and distributions by liquidators (section 109NA);. loans that are for the purpose of funding the purchase of certain shared or rights under an employee share scheme (section 109NB).(60) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (lines 5 to 16), omit section 109J, substitute:109J Payments discharging pecuniary obligations not treated as dividends A private company is not taken under section 109C to pay a dividend because of the payment of an amount, to the extent that the payment: (a) discharges an obligation of the private company to pay money to the entity; and (b) is not more than would have been required to discharge the obligation had the private company and entity been dealing with each other at arm's length.(61) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (line 23), omit "Payments and loans that are otherwise assessable", substitute "Certain payments and loans".(62) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (line 27), omit "if", substitute "to the extent that".(63) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (line 28), omit "section", substitute "Division".(64) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (after line 29), at the end of section 109L, add: (2) In addition, a private company is not taken under section 109C or 109D to pay a dividend because of a payment or loan that the private company made to an entity to the extent that a provision of this Act (other than this Division) has the effect that the payment or loan is not included in the entity's assessable income even though it would otherwise be included.(65) Schedule 9, item 2, page 108 (line 16), after "the loan", insert "for years of income after the year in which the loan is made".(66) Schedule 9, item 2, page 108 (line 23), omit "end", substitute "start".(67) Schedule 9, item 2, page 109 (after line 18), after section 109N, insert:109NA Certain liquidator's distributions and loans not treated as dividends A private company is not taken under section 109C or subsection 109D(1) to pay a dividend because of a distribution or loan made in the course of the winding-up of the company by a liquidator. Note: However, if such a loan is not fully repaid by the end of the following year of income, the company will be taken to have paid a dividend under subsection 109D(1A).109NB Loans to purchase shares under employee share schemes not treated as dividends (1) A private company is not taken under section 109D to pay a dividend because of a loan made solely for the purpose of enabling the shareholder or an associate of the shareholder to acquire qualifying shares or qualifying rights under an employee share scheme. (2) Expressions used in this section that are defined in Division 13A have the same meaning as in that Division.(68) Schedule 9, item 2, page 112 (lines 11 and 12), omit "and 109U", substitute ", 109U, 109UA and 109UB".(69) Schedule 9, item 2, page 113 (lines 23 to 33), omit section 109U, substitute: 109U Payments and loans through interposed entities relying on guarantees (1) This Division operates as if a private company makes a payment to an entity (the target entity ) as described in section 109V if: (a) during a year of income the private company guarantees a loan made by another entity (the first interposed entity ); and (b) a reasonable person would conclude (having regard to all the circumstances) that the private company gave the guarantee solely or mainly as part of an arrangement involving a payment or loan to the target entity; and (c) either: (i) the first interposed entity that is a private company makes a loan to the target entity; or (ii) another entity that is a private company interposed between the private company and the target entity makes a payment or loan to the target entity; and (d) the amount of the payment or the loan is greater than the amount worked out using the formula: Distributable surplus—Subsection 109Y(3) amount (2) The amount of the payment from the private company to the target entity (as worked out under section 109V) is to be reduced by the amount worked out using the formula: Distributable surplus—Subsection 109Y(3) amount (3) In the formulas in paragraph (1)(d) and subsection (2): distributable surplus means the distributable surplus (worked out under subsection 109Y(2)) for the interposed entity that made the payment or loan to the target entity for the year of income. subsection 109Y(3) amount means the total of any amounts calculated under subsection 109Y(3) in relation to that interposed entity for the year of income (apart from as a result of the operation of this section). This section operates regardless of certain factors (4) For the purposes of this section, it does not matter: (a) whether the interposed entity made the payment or loan to the target entity before, after or at the same time as the first interposed entity received the guarantee from the private company; or (b) whether or not the interposed entity paid or lent the target entity the same amount as the private company guaranteed.109UA Certain liabilities under guarantees treated as payments (1) Section 109T operates as if one entity (the first entity ) makes a payment to a second entity if the first entity guarantees a loan the second entity makes to a third entity (the target entity ) and, as a result of the guarantee, the first entity has a liability (other than a contingent liability) to make a payment to the second entity. Example: A private company guarantees a loan that a bank makes to a shareholder in the private company and the shareholder defaults on the loan. As a result, the company has a presently existing liability to make a payment to the bank. Section 109T operates as if the private company had made a payment to the bank, so the company is treated by section 109V as making a payment to the shareholder (because the bank is interposed between company and shareholder). (2) The amount of the payment (as worked out under section 109V) is to be reduced by any amount treated as a dividend as a result of the operation of section 109U in relation to the payment or loan made by the interposed entity to the target entity. (3) A private company is not taken under this Division to pay a dividend because of the operation of subsection (1) in relation to a guarantee if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) the target entity would suffer undue hardship if the private company were taken to pay a dividend to the entity because of the liability; and (b) when the target entity entered into the loan, the entity had the capacity to pay the loan. (4) This section does not the limit the operation of section 109T.109UB Certain trust amounts treated as loans (1) If: (a) a private company is, or has been, presently entitled to an amount from the net income of a trust estate; and (b) the trustee has not paid the amount to the private company; and (c) the trustee has made a loan to a shareholder of the private company, or an associate of such a shareholder after the time that the private company first became presently entitled to that amount; the private company is taken to have made a loan to the shareholder or associate, at the time that the trustee made the loan. (2) The amount of the loan is the lesser of the amount of the loan made by the trustee and the amount worked out using the formula: Unpaid present entitlement—Previous notional loans where: unpaid present entitlement means the total amount to which the private company is, or has been, presently entitled that the trustee has not paid. previous notional loans means the sum of amounts previously treated as a loan under this section as a result of its operation in relation to the unpaid present entitlement. Some provisions preventing loan giving rise to dividend do not apply to notional loan (3) Sections 109M and 109N do not apply to a loan that is taken to have been made under this section (so it must generally be taken into account for the purposes of working out whether the private company is taken under section 109D to have paid a dividend).(70) Schedule 9, item 2, page 116 (line 24), omit the formula, substitute: Net assets—Non-commercial loans—Paid-up share value—Repayments of non-commercial loans(71) Schedule 9, item 2, page 116 (line 26) to page 117 (line 3), omit the definition of book value , substitute: net assets means the amount (if any), at the end of the company's year of income, by which the company's assets (according to the company's accounting records) exceed the sum of: (a) the present legal obligations of the company to persons other than the company; and (b) the following provisions (according to the company's accounting records): (i) provisions for depreciation; (ii) provisions for annual leave and long service leave; (iii) provisions for amortisation of intellectual property and trademarks; (iv) other provisions prescribed under regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph. If the Commissioner considers that the company's accounting records significantly undervalue its assets or overvalue its provisions, the Commissioner may substitute a value that the Commissioner considers is appropriate.(72) Schedule 9, item 2, page 117 (line 5), before "109D", insert "108,".(73) Schedule 9, item 2, page 117 (line 6), at the end of the definition of non-commercial loan , add "as are shown as assets in the company's accounting records at the end of the year of income".(74) Schedule 9, item 2, page 117 (after line 11), after the definition of paid-up share value , insert: repayments of non-commercial loans means the total of: (a) any repayments to the company of loans that have been taken by section 108, 109D or 109E to be dividends; and (b) amounts set off against loans that have been taken by section 108, 109D or 109E to be dividends, other than such amounts that are set off as a result of: (i) a dividend (being a later dividend for the purposes of section 109ZC or a subsequent dividend for the purposes of subsection 108(2)) being paid by the company to the extent that the dividend has not been franked under section 160AQF; or (ii) a loan, or a part of a loan, being forgiven.(75) Schedule 9, item 2, page 118 (line 20), omit "payment or".(76) Schedule 9, item 2, page 118 (line 21), omit "payment or". (77) Schedule 9, item 2, page 118 (line 27), omit "payment or".(78) Schedule 9, item 2, page 119 (after line 7), at the end of section 109ZB, add: (3) However, this Division does not apply to a payment made to a shareholder, or an associate of a shareholder, in their capacity as an employee (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) or an associate of such an employee.(79) Schedule 9, item 2, page 120 (after line 14), after the definition of forgive , insert: guarantee , in relation to a loan, includes providing security for the loan.(80) Schedule 9, item 5, page 121 (line 4), omit "160AQCN ", substitute "160AQCNB ".(81) Schedule 9, item 5, page 121 (line 6), omit "160AQCP ", substitute "160AQCNC ".(82) Schedule 9, item 7, page 122 (after line 21), at the end of the item, add:(3) However, sections 109U, 109UA and 109UB of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 only apply to payments or loans made after 4.00 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 27 March 1998.(83) Schedule 9, page 122 (after line 28), after item 9, insert:9A Transitional—written loan agreements Division 7A of Part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies in relation to the 1997-98 year of income as if paragraph 109N(1)(a) of that Act were repealed and the following paragraph were substituted: (a) the loan is covered by a written agreement that was made before 1 July 1998; andI have moved a number of amendments on behalf of the government in this area. I will give a fairly brief explanation of these amendments. Overall, there are about 83 amendments, so I will be fairly brief on most of them.Amendments 1 to 5 deal with charitable trusts. Amendments 1 to 5 will correct some minor technical errors to the rewrite of the exempt entity provisions of the income tax law. Amendments 6 to 34 make improvements to the proposed choice of fund legislation contained in schedule 5 to the bill and are generally technical in nature. These improvements have either been identified by the Australian Taxation Office or brought to the government's attention by interested parties or raised in evidence provided to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation.These amendments deal with the following issues: first, defined benefits schemes. The bill is amended to exempt from the choice of fund requirements employers of employees who are members of defined benefits schemes where, in respect of existing employees, the fund is in surplus or where the employee has reached his or her maximum benefit accrual.Amendments 6 and 8 to 9 deal with Victorian state agreements. The bill is also amended to allow contributions made in accordance with certain Victorian workplace agreements to satisfy the choice of fund requirements.Amendment 10 deals with contributions under the prescribed legislation. An amendment is made to provide that contributions made in accordance with prescribed laws are made in accordance with the proposed choice of fund requirements.Amendment 12 deals with chosen funds which become non-complying funds. Further amendments alleviate the dilemma an employer may face where it is uncertain if a chosen fund under a limited choice offer is in fact a complying superannuation fund. The amendments permit an employer to seek from an employee a statement provided to the relevant trustee that the fund is in fact a complying superannuation fund. The amendments also deal with a situation where a chosen fund or default fund becomes a complying fund.Amendments 11, 13 to 14, 18 to 22, 26 to 27 and 29 to 32 deal with casual employees. The bill is amended to clarify that an employer is only required to offer a choice of funds to an employee within 28 days of the employee first commencing employment with the employer. Amendments 15 to 17 and 24 deal with informal agreements. Amendments are made to ensure that, where an employer and an employee have entered into an informal agreement, the employee will be unable to require the employer to make a further offer for a period of 12 months.I turn to amendment 25. An amendment is also made to correct a minor technical fault in the bill. Amendment 23 concerns exempt public sector schemes. An amendment is made in respect of a limited choice offer to include exempt public sector superannuation schemes in a category of an employer sponsored fund. Amendments 7 to 28 relate to retirement savings accounts. Amendments are made to the Retirement Savings Account Act 1997 to remove the exemption for an RSA provider from providing information to an account holder who became an account holder as a result of their employer opening an RSA on their behalf. A further technical amendment is made to the RSA Act to provide that the cooling off period will not apply where the RSA is chosen as a result of the employee exercising choice.Amendments 33 and 34 relate to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. Amendments are made to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to require all regulated superannuation funds to provide information to prospective members and employer sponsors. Amendments 35 to 39 concerning the franking of dividends and other distributions are technical amendments. I turn to amendments 40 to 44 and 80 to 81. The amendments will replace section numbers used in schedules 8 and 9 of the bill to prevent their unintended duplication. Distribution from private companies are dealt with under amendments 43 to 83. There are a number of amendments to the proposed provisions dealing with loans, payments and the forgiveness of debts by private companies to and on behalf of all of the benefit of shareholders or associates of shareholders.Schedule 9 of the bill introduced the proposed division 7A of part 3 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to strengthen the existing rules that treat as assessable unfranked dividends those loans and payments by private companies that are disguised distributions of profits. (Extension of time granted) Since the bill was introduced, a number of submissions have been received expressing concern that in some situations the new provisions may have unintended consequences. In response to these concerns, the government has decided to amend the provisions to clarify their operations. I commend the amendments to the House as circulated.22:17:002885Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—These 83 amendments represent an appalling process from a government whose legislative incompetence is truly astonishing. We had a situation where the amendments were announced on 27 March with a press release from the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp). They were announced at 4 p.m. on a Friday evening, and then the relevant Senate legislation committee was summonsed at 9 a.m. the following Monday. If we look at some of the issues which are being covered, we can talk about loan guarantees, loans for employee share scheme purchases, distributions by liquidators and winding up loans, trust distributions to corporate beneficiaries, amounts that are not otherwise assessable being treated as dividends, written loan agreements and the like—quite a substantial area and very complex and detailed legislation.However, those who may have been interested in it were given one business hour in order to respond. That was laughable, and the opposition boycotted that whole process. Subsequently, the Senate legislation committee convened on the following Friday. So we had a few days in which to have people looking at the 83 amendments, but in the meantime the government had introduced a new piece of legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998, and that apparently impacted on some of the matters which were the subject of these amendments. People were trying to work out just what impact those two combined pieces of legislation would have. They were in a position of not being able to make an adequate assessment of what the impact on their operations might be.There are ongoing concerns about these matters. Indeed, the shadow Treasurer has received correspondence from the Taxation Institute of Australia concerning these matters, saying that the Taxation Institute in giving evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee was critical of certain aspects of the bill, particularly the deficiency in consultation in relation to division 7A. I think that is putting it pretty mildly, given that if you are given one business hour to prepare a response that is the sort of thing you might refer to as a deficiency in consultation. The Taxation Institute expresses itself moderately. It says that it is still of the view that both division 7A and schedule 8 containing the anti-dividend streaming and anti-avoidance provisions should be excised from the bill and be subjected to rigorous debate to ensure that the provisions do not continue to create compliance problems for Australian businesses.We do have concerns that have been expressed about these matters. From our point of view, we have not had adequate time to deal with them. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary several specific questions concerning some of these amendments to see whether it is possible to get a response—preferably this evening but, if not, at some time in the future. The questions to the parliamentary secretary are as follows. I draw his attention to amendments 10 and 12, which relate to contributions under certain Victorian agreements—that is, the employment agreements that were in force under the Employee Relations Act 1992 in Victoria. I ask the government why it is seeking to move those two amendments. I am interested in getting a response to that. I am also interested in drawing the parliamentary secretary's attention to amendment 13, which relates to section 32CA. I want to ask two questions on subsection 2. Firstly, what exactly is an employee being required to do? Secondly, does an employee have to get a statement from a fund in relation to this issue. So there are two questions on amendment 13.Further in relation to amendment 13, I draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to subsection 32CB(2) which says that for the purposes of this part, the holder of an RSA is taken to be a member. My question is: of what is the holder of an RSA taken to be a member? The final matter I wanted to ask specific questions about concerns amendment 31, which relates to section 32QB, which is the section that says that an employer may request notice that a fund is complying. (Extension of time granted) My queries concerning this are: what obligations does this put on employees? Why would an employer want to request this information? What happens if an employer does not ask for this information or this certificate? Could this mean that they are liable for not complying with the new legislation, and, if so, what penalties might arise, or what penalties might they be up for? I am interested in getting some responses to those questions concerning specific amendments.22:23:002886Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—The questions which have been raised by the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) we are happy to take on notice at this stage. One other thing which I did not do earlier is present the addendum to the replacement supplementary explanatory memorandum, which I now provide. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.2886Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2886r4642886Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.2886Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2886r4182886Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills2886r4532886Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.2886Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous2886288610000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:The recklessness of the Howard government in inciting industrial conflict on the waterfront and inflicting unnecessary hardships on thousands of Australian workers and their families.22:29:002886Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from immediately debating this message from the Senate.I move this motion in particular given the new developments arising from this evening's Federal Court decision which has granted an interim injunction to prevent Patrick Stevedores sacking its 1,400 workers, and the revelation by Chris Corrigan on the 7.30 Report that he went to the government telling them of his plan to sack the workers but was unable to pay them out. This House accordingly demands to know why Patrick's has got special treatment whilst the Cobar and Woodlawn workers got nothing.Twelve months of plotting by this government has come undone in 24 hours in the Federal Court. What we have had is the Reith and Howard plot backing an unlawful act, an act which they nurtured, an act which they were prepared to bankroll. In terms of the history of that, Mr Speaker, I remind you of a departmental minute from the Department of Industrial Relations, dated 10 March 1997, which said:Another matter that might be canvassed is the proposition that a dispute—of itself—would produce desired change on the waterfront.The only thing missing was the date that that dispute was to be engineered. It went on:What would be needed for the MUA's influence on the waterfront to be significantly weakened would be for a range of affected service users and providers to take decisive action to protect or advance their interests.Again:Stevedores would need to activate well-prepared strategies to dismiss their workforce and replace them with another, quickly, in a way that limited the prospect of, for example, the Commission ordering reinstatement of the current work force.That was the plot, a plot laid down 13 months ago, a plot that came unstuck in the Federal Court today. What has been the result of all this plotting by the Howard government? It has been that 1,400 Australian workers were sacked last night at midnight, in the stealth of night, in the same sort of way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) got rid of his directorship in the Menzies Foundation. In the stealth of night last night, undercover, with secrecy, 1,400 workers were sacked by Patrick's.As we found out today, the only crime that they committed was belonging to a union. What we have established in question time today is that, apart from the Port Botany group of workers and apart from the Fishermen Island workers who were engaged in protective industrial action, no other workers had been involved in industrial disputation. We ask the question as to why the workers at Townsville, who were conducting world's best practice—they were in a bulk terminal with very little utilisation of containers—were sacked. What did they do to get sacked? The only thing they did was to belong to the MUA. Motion (by Mr Reith ) put: That the member be not further heard.22:37:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)73Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.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.Worth, P. M.43Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?22:41:002888McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I second the motion. Of course the government should come in and explain why it sacked these people. Motion (by Mr Reith ) put: That the member be not further heard.22:41:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)73Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.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.Worth, P. M.43Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Halverson, R. G. Holding, A. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Reid, N. B. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Crean's ) be agreed to.22:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)43Adams, 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, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.75Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Jull, D. F.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.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.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.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Holding, A. C. Halverson, R. G.McLeay, L. B. Reid, N. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business288922:49:002889Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence, the Senate is still considering the native title amendment legislation. The intentions of the government are that, over night, advisers will be able to give us a schedule of the matters which have occurred in the Senate, the cabinet will consider the issues very early in the morning and, as soon as the cabinet has had an opportunity to assess the situation, the parliament will resume at 8.30 a.m. We expect to have one speaker a side.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I thought it would be two a side.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We can discuss that. As soon as that has been completed, the House will then be able to adjourn. That is the state of affairs. Obviously, it is subject to any untoward developments in the Senate overnight, but the House will resume at 8.30 a.m. and hopefully the matters can be dealt with expeditiously at that time.I should say that this is obviously very important legislation, and whilst people are keen to get home for Easter—and we appreciate that—we do have a responsibility to ensure that this legislation is properly treated and that we have available to the government full and complete and comprehensive advice on the various steps necessary to complete the parliament's consideration of this legislation. So I thank all honourable members for their patience this evening. We will resume, therefore, at that time.Bills2890289022:50:002890Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—For the information of members, I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997.Sitting suspended from 10.50 p.m. to 8.30 a.m. (Thursday)1998-04-08Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills2891r4642891Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:002891Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998 amends part 4A of the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, which deals with the Austudy-Abstudy financial supplement. The financial supplement is a loan scheme under which students can obtain $2 on loan for every $1 of Austudy or Abstudy entitlement, up to a maximum of $3,500. This scheme, one of the innovations of the former Labor government, is designed to benefit students, providing them with greater flexibility in income support—in stark contrast to the treatment students have received from the coalition.Financial supplement loans become repayable through the tax system, five years after they have been made available. On 1 July 1998, the first loan recipients, those in 1993, will be required to commence repayments if their taxable income exceeds the minimum threshold. The minimum level at which repayments begin, some $29,300, is set at the annual equivalent of average weekly earnings and requires payment at a rate of two per cent of annual income. At an income level of $33,300, three per cent repayments apply, rising to four per cent at the income level of $46,629.These thresholds are the same after indexation as those that applied to Labor's HEC scheme. Of course, under the coalition government, the HECS repayment threshold is set at the ridiculously low level of less than $21,000. At least with this bill the government is not attempting to pile further repayment obligations on graduates with an income some $8,000 below average weekly earnings.Some 44,000 students took advantage of the financial supplement scheme in its first year of operation, 1993. While the vast majority of them still have at least some outstanding debt, it is not known how many will be required to commence repayments in the 1998-99 tax year, because their income levels are unknown. By 1996, the number of students with a financial supplement loan had grown to some 68,000—around 13 per cent of Austudy and Abstudy recipients.The bill also introduces a 14-day cooling off period for financial supplement applications. This means that students can have a full two years to consider their financial options and whether to proceed with trading their Austudy entitlement for twice as much money in the form of a loan. If they wish, students can choose to have earlier access to the loan funds, thus waiving the cooling off period. The opposition supports this refinement to the scheme that it developed in government.The framework of the financial supplement scheme is part of the Youth Allowance (Consequential Measures) Bill, but this bill is still before the parliament. In any case, changes to the Student and Youth Assistance Act are required in order to put in place the financial supplement arrangements applying to Abstudy recipients. The opposition will be supporting this bill.10:03:002892Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—The Student and Youth Assistance Act makes provision for certain benefits for students and young people, and it has been taken advantage of by many constituents in my electorate. I have had a number of young people come to see me about various aspects of this particular scheme. Indeed, during a youth forum that we had in my office some months ago, last year, this was one area that raised some comment from time to time in the course of that discussion.The principal act provides, as I say, for the establishment of the Austudy scheme, and the financial supplement scheme itself provides for repayable loans for tertiary students. The scheme was introduced in the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1992 and was commenced in January 1993. It is an optional loan scheme. It gives eligible tertiary students greater flexibility in meeting their financial needs.The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) made some comment about the government not being interested in students. I say that the government is sensitive to the needs of students and is sensitive to the direction in a government policy sense that provides opportunities for students and gives them a facility that is available to meet the needs of their particular case but, at the same time, is a responsible attitude to them. The particular amendment, for example, providing for the cooling off period is a demonstration of that greater responsibility. The 14-day cooling off period for the financial supplement applications does give students who have applied for a financial supplement loan a period to reconsider their circumstances, and, if they so decide, they can withdraw their application without penalty. The amendments will be a significant improvement on the current arrangements under which a student can withdraw his or her application, but only before receiving any financial supplement payments. A student who does not wish to take advantage of the cooling off period will be able to waive that right to withdraw and this will enable a much faster processing regime to be put in place. Obviously those students will be in a position to say that they are sure that they want to apply for a financial supplement.The bill also inserts the prescribed amounts for the year of income ending 30 June 1998 which will also determine the amount of the person's accumulated financial supplement debt that must be repaid in respect of that year. As 1997-98 is the first assessable year in respect of financial supplement debts, the amendment must be in place before the ATO commences the collection of these debts on 1 July 1998.There are also a number of other minor amendments which will facilitate the program's administrative arrangements. The government has demonstrated a strong commitment to this scheme and also to the students of Australia—a responsible commitment, in my view. The comments by the member for Werriwa are not accepted.The direction that has been taken by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) in this particular matter is a good one. I note the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) is here to support the bill and I commend the efforts that he has taken, in the two years that we have been in government, in demonstrating to the students of Australia that this government has a commitment to their needs and is sensitive to the position that they wish to take in relation to whether they want to take advantage of this scheme or to proceed under some other arrangements. In all of the circumstances the Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998 is a good piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.10:08:002893Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) noted that this Austudy student loan scheme was in fact introduced by the former government. It is good to see that there is some policy of the former government that the member for Werriwa actually supports. The member for Werriwa is much enamoured of loan schemes. He would like to turn the whole of the social security system into a giant loan scheme. He would like to turn the DSS into the ultimate people's bank. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the support that the opposition is giving this bill.I am also grateful to my friend and colleague the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) for his comments. He gave a very good summary of the bill's effects. I thank him and congratulate him for his work in this area. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2893r4182893Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:10:002893Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—This piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 , is relatively small, but it raises some very interesting issues, particularly in the circumstances of what was announced this morning. This is a bill for the purpose of changing some of the arrangements by which superannuation is calculated.The amendments ensure that, notwithstanding the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards, employers will be able to continue to use the notional earnings basis of employees determined by reference to federal industrial awards. This will enable employers to continue to use the notional earning basis for the purpose of calculating their liability, if any, to pay superannuation guarantee charge. The amendments also make further minor amendments to the superannuation guarantee law, consequent upon the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards.It has been the history of compulsory superannuation that originally it was inserted in awards, and we had industrial courts even instructing employers as to the union fund to which they would be obliged to contribute. It is a matter of record that the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, attended an ACTU conference and made a prediction—which has been further proved correct today—that unions would lose their industrial muscle in Australia, as they were losing it around the world. He said that, by this process of compulsory superannuation, he was going to give them financial muscle.Compulsory superannuation has happened, but when it was happening at the instruction of an industrial court it was clearly unfair to the employer and the employee. I drew it to the attention of the parliament probably eight years ago that this process was forcing itinerant employees into a variety of funds that varied with their employment. For instance, they would have to go into an AWU fund while they were shearing, and then, when they took on truck driving at harvest time, they would have to go into the TWU one. We had this scattering of contributions of relatively small amounts being heavily eroded by administration costs and other matters.Consequently, I drew to the parliament's attention, all those years ago, some exact examples of shearers whose actual amount of money that they had by way of credit in their superannuation fund was less than their employer contributions.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—At the end of the day, they got nothing.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—That is right. The earnings were such that they were not keeping pace with the fees, and the smaller these amounts were, the more frequently this occurred. Whilst nobody would object to schemes that created an opportunity for employees to have additional funds in their retirement, they would expect that they had the right to choose and to maximise those funds.Other legislation has removed the power to dictate where an employee would have their superannuation even though they might then find themselves in a situation of that place, or a reciprocal place, being changed with their employment. That has ceased to be the case. Under this bill, employers, in calculating their liability to pay superannuation on behalf of their employees, can use the award rate of pay.But isn't it amazing, in light of this legislation, that we have some rather exciting comparisons to make today. The Patrick people have given us some examples of the sort of superannuation that waterfront workers in their employ will receive as a result of their being retrenched last night. I thought it was pretty interesting.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—It is not as good as yours.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Well, that was just the point that I was about to make. Martin, you should have taken the opportunity to be a wharfie rather than a member of parliament because here is what we are told—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Set up a trust like Senator Parer. Let me get your views on that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—If you want to invite me to comment on trusts, let me tell you about the first aspect of a trust in tax terms. All the tax advantages of a trust can be obtained in a partnership. So you had better start on them too. Let me remind you too, that if you—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for O'Connor should not allow himself to be provoked.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Well, I am invited by the member to comment on trusts.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do not accept his invitation.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—And it was John Howard, sir—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Save it for the legislation.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, well, can I just tell you that it was John Howard who made it the law that children under 18 who get trust distribution pay tax at 48c. I would like to go back to superannuation because I thought it was worth drawing to the attention of the House considering the substantial controversy that is raised over parliamentary superannuation—and, of course, quite clearly, the member is going to refuse to take his when he leaves this place! I understood that he was sent here to top up his superannuation like all his other union mates. That is the only reason they come here.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will stick to the business of the bill.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Well, it is all about superannuation, sir.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understand what you are saying.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—We are now well aware that Mr Campbell and others, very good members of the Senate, have to be sent home like Bruce Childs so that other union members can come in and have a superannuation top up. That is clearly the case and I am sure the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) understands that because, of course, he is one of those who worked it out.I thought I would quote a few of these figures. Someone who is aged 59, a little younger than me, with 22 years service, would get, as a lump sum payout, $149,292 plus a redundancy payment—not available to members of parliament—of $107,000 and other entitlements of $15,800, which is very close, I would imagine, to a $300,000 package. That is substantially more than most members of parliament will get.I made a calculation because I am one of these people who is subject to compulsory superannuation. The member for Batman suggested that person would get less than I would. When I retire from this place in, say, six years time, I will have contributed close to $400,000 of my own money to my superannuation fund at an 11 per cent rate with a simple compound interest of five per cent, which is well and truly below the opportunity rate that money would have attracted during my period here when the Labor Party took interest rates up to 22 per cent. I certainly could have got 15 or 16 per cent.So the reality is that, if I survive on the pension rate available to me for the first 10 years after I retire, I will not get a penny of superannuation. Those are the circumstances of long-serving members in this place. I have just given you the circumstances of a `long-serving member' who is going to get superannuation of $150,000 for making no contributions whatsoever. He is going to get a redundancy payment of $107,000. For what? For turning up to work and working 14 hours per week. Pretty good trick. Those are the circumstances of someone with 22 years service, which is fairly significant. It is certainly less than I will have contributed in the example that I just gave the House.Let us look at somebody who is 35 years of age with eight years of service. Eight years is a very significant number in parliamentary history because very few federal members of parliament survive longer than eight years. I well remember the class of 1980 that came in with me. It included a large number of new Labor members. I struck them all one day when they were having a dinner. I said, `What is this dinner all about' and they said, `We are celebrating the fact that we have just gone past eight years of service, and that is a milestone.' I might add that most of them were not back after nine. That is the example I want to give you because—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But you came back.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, I am a long-serving member. I have taken two per cent of Labor's vote from them at every election and they are not smart enough to know why. They are not smart enough to know why. I can talk to their members. I do not bully them at the factory gate; I do not have to do that. They vote for me—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You hit them with an iron bar, don't you?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—They are very approving of that, and that is where you are silly again. It is all your voters that congratulate me in those matters.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—They like being hit with an iron bar, do they?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The interesting fact is—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell them what you said last night about the iron bar.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You know what I said and if you want the same, you can have it. You would be the same.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for O'Connor will address his remarks through the chair.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Put it on the record.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I would have liked to have had you in my bar when you were about 15 or 16. You would have wondered what struck you. You need some heavies like Robert Ray.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Threaten them like you threatened me.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will turn to the subject of the bill and the member for Batman will be silent.10000Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You need heavies like Robert Ray running secrets on women.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He has threatened me with his iron bar.LS4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have not. That is just the sort of myth that you perpetuate.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He threatened me last night. It's on the record too.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Fibs are something that are the stock in trade of the member for Batman.I want to go back to this person with eight years service. There is huge criticism of people who come in here and give huge hours in the service of Australia as members of parliament. That criticism is made about people from both sides of the House. I have never ever allowed anybody to criticise any member of this House for being lazy. We hear the words, `They are lazy. They spend all their time in the bar.' We know that is not true. All members of parliament work very hard. They work long hours and frequently seven days a week.But this example is for someone on a five-day working week and, as has been mentioned, in many cases working only for 14 hours per week. He is 35 years of age and with eight years service. The redundancy payment—which is a form of superannuation, let's face it, and which is non-contributory—is $65,900. That is more than $8,000 a year. Then we have superannuation of $47,465—which is also non-contributory—and other entitlements of $14,300. That can only be described as extremely generous.It is an interesting point that the ABC has been very carefully selecting its radio talkback people this morning. I heard them all. One of them, encouraged by this lady, Cathy Van Extel, said that farmers should not be involved in any of these matters, they should be looking after their drought affected properties.I put it to you that if you are a farmer and the price of wool has dropped $1 a kilo, as it has in the last fortnight, and you have severe drought conditions, then the cost of exporting that wool should interest you. When the freight rate between California and Tokyo is half the rate that is charged for the same distance between Melbourne and Tokyo, in other words, about $500 or $600 a container, and when there are the reduced handling costs, surely you would be interested in how your goods were exported. The freight rate is nearly equivalent to the value of your goods. The reality is that this debate today is a lot more about what is fair in the Australian community.It has been held up for years that parliamentary superannuation and other entitlements are extremely generous. I have just drawn to the attention of the House how much more generous they would be if each and every one of us had managed to approach John Coombs, while he was at his wine growing place on a weekend, and get him drunk enough to give us a ticket to membership of the MUA.You wonder how long this has been going on. My mother used to tell a joke about the fellow who walked into a Fremantle hotel. He was having a drink when he was approached to buy a ticket in a raffle. He said, `Yes, I am interested. How much?' The price of the ticket was £10. That was when wages were about £5 a week; it was a fortune. He said, `Gosh, that is an extremely expensive raffle ticket. What are the prizes?'The chap replied, `First prize is lifetime membership of the wharfies union.' The bloke said, `That's a pretty valuable prize. I am interested in that. What is the second prize?' The bloke said, `That is lifetime membership to the tallyclerks union,' which was another wharf associated union in those days. He then said, `That's pretty good. Are there any other prizes?', and the fellow said, `Yes, there is a third one, but it is only £10,000!' That was the attitude in the community in those days.That was my mother's joke; she has been deceased for many years now. People understood then that those fellows, through their industrial action, were getting an unfair share of the economic cake and that others were paying for it—and they do pay for it. They pay for it in many ways, including superannuation, because if it is non-contributory then of course the employer pays it; the employer adds it to the charges that they levy on these things and that flows on to the general community.Australia has always been a substantial importer of whitegoods and all of these sorts of commodities that go to building one's house or furnishing it, and the reality is that every time a container comes in we are paying double the freight rate on an international comparison. Why? Because the most competitive of the shipping companies will refuse point blank to come to Australia. They just refuse point blank.I have given the House an example on another occasion where a factory in Western Australia closed down when there were huge export opportunities available to it through its own subsidiary companies overseas. Because it could not get the shipping companies that serviced it—at highly competitive freight rates—to come to Fremantle to pick up the same product, they were unable to compete. And you talk about people losing jobs.The issue today is that 1,400 people have been sacked. Nobody thought that was a problem when all those pilots resigned when Mr Abeles and Mr Court were there. You see we are back to superannuation—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I rise to speak on a point of order. The issue goes to the bill before the House which concerns the issue of superannuation. There is a separate debate in the House of Representatives today on the question of waterfront reform. I would ask that you call the member for O'Connor to order on the question of relevance.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—I will consider the point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes. I would like to speak to it. The matter is about superannuation and award provisions applicable to superannuation. I am talking about award conditions. I have not diverted from the bill because one is entitled to quote examples.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I took a point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You can take a point of order whenever you like but you had better make it relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. Resume your seat.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ruling is quite correct. The reality is that that is what this bill deals with and it is my responsibility to give examples to the House on these matters. If the bill had been dealing with some other aspect, the member for Batman might just be correct but that is what the bill tells us. I read at the beginning the general outline.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He is trying to shut you up.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—He is a bit embarrassed of course. They are backing a loser but furthermore they are backing a group of people who, as I said, in terms of their superannuation entitlement are substantially better off than any other workers and they have loaded it on the rest of the workers. That is the reality. Anybody who gets ahead of the system in the Australian economy ends up driving other people below the poverty line.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What do the battlers think about it all?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The people under the poverty line understand. We had this discussion about a port in my electorate—the port of Geraldton. A journalist rang me up and said, `What about the 20 jobs involved?' I said, `Well, what about the million unemployed? What is the social issue?' But thank you. I will not get you concerned again, Madam Chair.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I have a point of order. I am asking you to ask the member for O'Connor to sit down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman has a point of order.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I refer to the bill before the House. The intent of the bill is to take out of the Workplace Relations Act responsibility for handling industrial relations. It is a very specific proposal. I suggest that you re-examine your previous ruling as to whether or not the member is speaking to the bill and whether or not he is out of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have done so. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for O'Connor.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am concluding my remarks. The member for Batman is, as we agreed, getting very nervous about this situation. He does not like these examples going on the record. In closing I would remind you that the short title of the bill is `Workplace Relations Amendments (Superannuation) Bill' and I do not believe I diverted from issues relating to that short title throughout my speech. Thank you for your support.10:30:002898Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in opposition to this dishonest, mean-spirited Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 introduced by a dishonest, mean-spirited government. In doing so I remind the House that, up until the early 1980s, superannuation was the preserve of a minority in Australia. That is the truth of the matter: superannuation was the preserve of a privileged class in Australia. Superannuation was available—unfortunately, all too often—on a non-contributory basis to members of the judiciary, to members of parliament, to senior management, to some public servants, though certainly not to blue-collar public servants, and to some people in local government. It most certainly was not available to women.In the last decade, Australia has made a fundamental change. The change has in essence required that we all contribute through savings, via superannuation, to our retirement. The development of that new approach to life—the requirement that we all save for retirement—was obviously necessary to put in place an appropriate superannuation system. The historical records will show that the extension of superannuation beyond a privileged class was opposed by the coalition and resisted by employers. It was only as a result of a concerted campaign by the union movement that superannuation became the right of all Australian workers. I think that is exceptionally important.Historically, up until the early 1980s, the great majority of Australian workers—especially women workers, part-time workers and casual workers—were denied access to superannuation. That effectively meant that we reduced their capacity to retire with some dignity. The intent of the coalition at the time was to basically say to Australian workers, `All you are entitled to is the old age pension. Nothing more. We don't expect that you have a right to have access to superannuation.' I object to that situation.It is against that background that I rise to speak on the bill which, I believe, seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by removing superannuation from the list of allowable award matters. The truth of the issue is that superannuation is an award matter. Superannuation only became the right of all Australian workers because it was an industrial matter, won in the industrial battlefield by the Australian trade union movement. Our call to extend superannuation to all Australian workers was resisted by coalition members of parliament and resisted by the great majority of Australian employers.We asked that they sit down and talk about the need to establish a comprehensive superannuation scheme for the whole Australian public but they rejected those calls and basically challenged the trade union movement to develop them industrially. Finally, the then Industrial Relations Commission, having seen the extension of superannuation across the work force, did a mopping up exercise which ensured that those who had not achieved access to superannuation to date were given that fundamental right through the initial introduction of a three per cent superannuation entitlement. That is the record, and we are proud of that record because we achieved it very much to the betterment of the Australian nation at large and, more importantly, to the betterment of many workers who, historically, had been denied access to superannuation. It was, until the 1980s, the preserve of a privileged minority in Australia.I might also say that, up until then, the existing superannuation schemes were rorted to the detriment of workers. More often than not, workers worked for many years with an individual employer and then when they chose to leave or to take early retirement, they found that there was fine print which effectively denied them access to their superannuation entitlements, despite operating on the basis of goodwill and the belief that they had a long-term entitlement to superannuation. We even had situations whereby employers were borrowing from those superannuation schemes—not with the knowledge of the workers—to finance their own activities at minimal interest payments, and were not properly investing workers superannuation to ensure that we maximised their entitlements and their capacity to retire with some dignity.That was the old regime, a regime on superannuation supported by the coalition government. It was only with the support of the Industrial Relations Commission and the work of the trade union movement that we established superannuation as the right of all Australian workers and ensured, in doing so, that there was accountability with respect to the performance and management of those superannuation schemes. That is pretty important: accountability, with respect to performance, the proper investment of workers' money and a guarantee that we would get the best possible return for the investment of those workers' moneys.I suggest to the House today that one of the immediate effects of this bill would be to immediately remove the award superannuation entitlements of over 26,000 workers in, for example, the hospitality industry and the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. It is interesting to note that the great majority of workers in the hospitality industry and the textiles, clothing and footwear industry are women workers. We are winding back the clock yet again with no access to child care, a system by which they are trying to undermine the capacity to maintain decent award wages and conditions. They are now seeking to rip away from those workers access to superannuation. That is the end result of this proposal.The end result is to again undermine the rights of Australian women to participate on an equal footing in the industrial arena. It is to immediately remove entitlements from workers who earn less than $450 per month and who depend on their award in order to get any superannuation award. What does that say to women workers? If you want to work on a part-time or casual basis, but maintain a foot in employment, and also devote yourself to bringing up your young children, then this government says to you, `We are going to put in place an industrial regime that denies those women workers and their young families a long-term capacity to build a decent superannuation opportunity for retirement.' That is the end result of it if you are a female worker working part-time and earn less than $450 per month.Not all the workers out there have those types of jobs. In the hospitality industry, the clerical industry, the child-care industry, and even in Parliament House, more and more workers are working on a part-time or a casual basis. Significantly more and more of those workers are women. They are no longer entitled to superannuation. They are no longer entitled to a lifetime opportunity to build a decent superannuation capacity and retire with some dignity, and in doing so, to take the pressure off the public purse.That is what superannuation is about. It is about all of us pulling our weight, having an entitlement to save for our retirement and, in doing so, taking pressure off the public purse.Workers who earn less than $450 per month tend to be casual and part-time workers, as I have said. They are already deeply disadvantaged under the Howard government's increasingly deregulated industrial relations regime. That is the truth of the matter. In Australia in recent years, there has been a sharply rising trend by employers towards more casual and, therefore, less secure work. That is what it is about: less security in people's lives; less security in the community at large; less security at work; and now, for a lot of Australian workers, no entitlement to superannuation and, therefore, less security in retirement at a time when they should be entitled to security. People worked their whole working life to bring up their family. They ought to be relaxing in the knowledge that they are secure in retirement because they have an entitlement to build throughout their working life a decent superannuation benefit.So much for this government's commitment to security and a requirement that Australian workers work on the basis that there is someone in government who cares about their long-term capacity to work in a decent working environment and to retire with some dignity. Industrial relations conditions for part-time and casual workers have deteriorated. The record shows it.It is for this reason that Labor is proposing in its new policy platform that part-time workers should be treated equally in industrial relations terms by obtaining portable entitlements on a pro rata basis compared with those of full-time workers. Labor recognises that casual and part-time workers who work few hours need access to training and career opportunities to assist them to move into better paid jobs in industry—a career opportunity and a foot on the ladder so that we move away from the old days. The old days especially applied to women workers; they had low paid jobs, no training and no career opportunities, but there is also superannuation because of the achievements of the last 15 years.They also need access to the traditional employment conditions of full-time workers, such as holiday pay, sick pay and long service leave. The last thing they need is to lose some of those few conditions that they do have, such as superannuation as an award right.Yes, this is exactly what this bill and this government are seeking to make happen. This bill is all about taking away some of the hard-won entitlements to superannuation which many low-income working people had gained in recent years—ripping it away. Where is that ironclad guarantee given before the last election, a non-core promise that no worker would be disadvantaged by the new industrial relations system put in place by the Howard government?Again we have a non-core promise, less security in people's working lives and, more importantly, another doublecross by the Howard government. That is what it is: a doublecross, an act of a hypocrite and a humbug. That is the real result of this decision by the Howard government.This bill is all about taking away some of those hard-won entitlements. I am proud to say that I played a part in helping low-income workers win some of those superannuation entitlements. I was part of that campaign and I was proud of it, because the union I was part and parcel of basically represented unskilled and low skilled workers, the majority of whom were women—women in cleaning jobs in schools in outback Queensland, women in the contract cleaning industry, women in the security industry, women in the child-care industry, women in the paint industry and women employed at Kodak in Melbourne to process films. They were low paid workers who had to struggle from week to week to look after their families, but issue by issue we won the same conditions of employment that men had traditionally had.One of the greatest achievements that I was part of was ensuring that all those workers, all members of the Miscellaneous Workers Union, the majority of whom were women, actually had an entitlement to award based superannuation. When you actually went out and talked to women about it, they knew about the importance of this issue.The member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), who was part and parcel of that development on the industrial relations front, and Senator Cook, who was Minister for Industrial Relations, contributed from a Labor point of view to ensuring that women workers had access to superannuation, because they understood the importance on a long-term basis of all of us making a contribution to savings and taking the pressure off the public purse.But again, we are turning back the clock. That is what it is about: turning back the clock, returning to the dark old ages, the medieval ages that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is so relaxed and comfortable with. He cannot look to the 21st century, he cannot lead and he cannot make decisive decisions, but he is comfortable with the 1950s—the 1950s that denied women workers equal pay, the 1950s that denied women workers superannuation and the 1950s that denied women workers part-time entitlements to annual leave and sick leave. That is what it is about: the relaxed and comfortable 1950s that the Prime Minister is proud to be part and parcel of.On this superannuation front I am proud of the achievements of the Australian trade union movement, with the support of Labor in government. I am here today speaking in opposition to this government's underhanded attempt to take away those entitlements. That is what it is: a sneaky, underhanded attempt. It is the same sneaky approach that the Prime Minister took with respect to the Menzies Foundation: sneaking in the dead of night to hide his trail. That is what it is about: a sneaky government led by a sneaky Prime Minister more concerned with taking away Australian workers' justifiable entitlements than with a sense of decency and decent wages and conditions of employment.We made great gains on the superannuation front, and we did that by achieving the insertion into awards of requirements that employers contribute to superannuation payments. Do you think they wanted to contribute to superannuation payments? They did not. We had to win it industrially, with the support of the Industrial Relations Commission. They did not sit down and willy-nilly say, `When we woke up this morning we decided to give all Australian workers superannuation. It is a great idea. Why didn't we think of it before?' That is not how it was achieved. It was achieved with the support of the award system and with the support of the Industrial Relations Commission.We also ensured that workers themselves contributed to their future savings by making their own contributions. That was a huge achievement. I recall that one of the major disputes that led to award based superannuation actually occurred in the paint industry and involved people employed by companies such as Dulux, Taubmans, Bristol and Selleys—some of which have disappeared through mergers in recent years.Having achieved the right to three per cent superannuation in an industry scheme, we then asked the employers if they would permit workers to make additional contributions out of their own pockets to ensure that they had a greater capacity to build an even bigger retirement bundle via superannuation.I will never forget those discussions, with the employers basically saying that they would not support the development of a superannuation scheme that says that paint workers and manufacturing workers—in such suburbs as Bankstown in western Sydney, Footscray in Melbourne, and Clayton—should be encouraged and entitled, on a voluntary basis, to put their own hand in their pocket and make contributions to superannuation. To the employers, it was un-Australian to think that workers actually wanted to pay for their retirement, to build a bigger nest egg: we could not have that.So how did we do it? We had to go to the commission and establish it as if it were an award right. Who is the winner? It is you, I and every other Australian, because we are all now saving towards our retirement. We are actually ensuring that we have a greater capacity to look after people in later life through aged care nursing homes and hostels because, by saving for our retirement and gathering a decent superannuation entitlement, we are actually freeing up revenue for some of those other competing claims for what the Australian community expects in a decent country: decent nursing homes and decent aged care facilities.You know that, when you live from week to week in retirement, you can go down to the dental hospital and not have to wait two to three years actually to get a new set of dentures—or that is what we used to have a couple of years ago. I know we do not have it now. It is not a big thing to the coalition government. But, in my seat of Batman, things such as dental care were pretty fundamental, and constituents in my electorate were some of the biggest users of that dental scheme.I am also proud to say that, as president of the ACTU, I actually drove the establishment of that dental scheme because I knew that, for people in retirement who live from week to week, such an entitlement to a decent dental scheme was pretty fundamental. It was part of the achievements of the social wage under the accord system. Labor's superannuation reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s are examples of good public policy. That is what they were: good public policy. They created a foundation for Australia to go forward—a very solid foundation, a statement internationally that we were prepared to ensure that all of us had a capacity to retire with dignity, a statement which said to the international community, `We got it right.'We knew how to do it. We set up decent industry superannuation funds, on the basis of which the employer contributed and the worker contributed, according to their economic capacity. They are not union run schemes; they are industry schemes, joint trustees of workers representatives and employer representatives, managed at arms-length on a professional basis. You ought to compare the earnings of those schemes: they are second to none, efficiently and properly managed on a basis of accountability not only to the members at large but also to the Australian community.This issue is about a fundamental right of all Australian workers to retire with some dignity and to have access to superannuation. It is appropriately an industrial matter handled by the Industrial Relations Commission. It is appropriately a matter which should ensure that all workers, part-time and casual, have access to superannuation. We politicians, who do pretty well out of superannuation, actually ought to think about those people who do not have as generous a superannuation scheme.That is why Labor developed superannuation. It was about ensuring that superannuation was no longer only the preserve of such people as the member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) but was also the entitlement, for example, of a child-care worker living in the seat of Mitchell and of a paint worker living in the seat of Blaxland. That was what it was about: ensuring that all of us had access to superannuation. It was not the coalition's approach, which is that superannuation is the privilege of a minority in Australia: politicians, judges, management and some public servants. I am pleased to be associated with the Labor Party's position today.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) stands condemned for ripping away at the heart of superannuation in Australia and for ripping away at the public purse. More importantly, he stands condemned for what I can best describe as raping—for that is what it is—the superannuation entitlement of women workers in Australia: turning back the clock and basically saying to women workers, `You do not have any entitlement to superannuation.' You stand condemned. (Time expired)10:50:002903Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker, I was amazed by your tolerance at the pathetic performance by the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), who is just leaving the chamber. It was sad, because it indicates that the Labor Party is locked into the notion of the class warfare of the 1890s. The Labor Party does not appreciate that, following the election to government of this coalition just two years ago, Australia is now a fair place with a reasonable workplace relations regime.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Where you sack workers?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member for Jagajaga is one of those who obviously is an industrial troglodyte. She is a person who does not appreciate that one person's pay rise on many occasions has been another person's job. She ought not to yell in an undignified way across the committee floor—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—1,400 wage earners have lost their jobs.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—What she ought to do is to appreciate that her government in office over a period of 13 years put almost one million people on the dole queues.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You don't care, do you.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—So you ought to stop yapping like a dog, you ought to stop making this noise—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Order! The member for Fisher.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—and you ought to appreciate—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Why don't you take some notice instead?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—that we are talking about the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 .10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Fisher, would you direct your comments through the chair, and the member for Jagajaga will please keep her comments to herself.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Jagajaga is an industrial troglodyte and she is a person who is a member of a political party which, in 13 years of government, put close to one million people on the dole queues. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, these people opposite ought not to interject. They should support this particular legislation but they continue to push the outdated class warfare notions of the 1890s. They seem to forget that at the election in March 1996 they were reduced to an absolute rump.Mr Cadman interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The people of Australia, as the member for Mitchell points out, rejected them comprehensively. They have almost no members in this place. They are completely irrelevant, have run out of ideas and what they are doing is marching back to the past. The honourable member for Jagajaga, who is a nice person as an individual, unfortunately is someone they have brought into this parliament to push outdated ideas.The bill before the Main Committee today amends the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to remove superannuation from allowable award matters in subsection 89A(2) of the act. This bill is part of the government's commitment to small business, whereby we aim to simplify regulation and red tape. The government has promised to reduce red tape for business by 50 per cent in our first term of government.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.53 a.m. to 11.11 a.m.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Before I was so rudely interrupted by the Labor Party's refusal in the main chamber to adopt the sale of the balance of two-thirds of Telstra, I was referring to the reduction in red tape which will flow on to small business as a result of the passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 .At the present time, businesses have to comply with award superannuation obligations as well as separate requirements in the superannuation guarantee legislation. The passage of this bill will ensure that one lot of superannuation requirements is all that is around, making life much easier for business while ensuring that the superannuation entitlements of employees are preserved. The bill will complement the new choice of funds arrangement contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 . The result of the combination of these two bills will be genuine superannuation reform.As has been pointed out, these amendments will stop the Australian Industrial Relations Commission dealing with disputes on superannuation by arbitration. The commission will no longer be able to prevent or settle superannuation disputes by making awards or orders or maintain the settlement of such disputes by varying awards and orders. This is, of course, a very important and a very positive reform. As a result of the amendments, superannuation provisions will be removed from existing awards and one amendment to subsection 89A(7) will prohibit the making of exceptional matters orders about superannuation.We ought to look at the history of the legislation before the chamber. The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 was a landmark bill introduced to this parliament by this government following the March 1996 election. It was legislation which will bring about reform of the Australian industrial relations system to better facilitate agreements between employers and employees. It is all about industrial harmony and not industrial disputation.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It's a joke!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is not a joke. The legislation introduced to the parliament by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) will bring about industrial harmony. What it will do is to remove the disproportionate power which some unions have had over their employees. It brings about genuine choice and fairness and emphasises the right that employees have to not join a union, as well as, of course, maintaining the rights that they do in fact have to join a union.It is instrumental to note that over the years the percentage of the Australian work force in unions has continued to diminish. This is a recognition that the outdated class warfare notions espoused by the honourable members for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) and Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) are no longer in keeping with the ethos of the Australian industrial community and, indeed, of Australian workers. They are out of date, they are out of touch and they have run out of ideas.While the former Labor government saw that there was some need to promote industrial relations reform, much of what they did was ineffective and did not go anywhere near far enough. Regrettably, the current opposition have decided to march firmly back towards the past. That is why they oppose the bill currently before the chamber.When the original bill, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996, was introduced, it was intended that the allowable award matters would not include superannuation. So really what we are doing today is to fix up an anomaly which occurred when the original bill passed through the chamber.We all recall that in September 1996, or thereabouts, an agreement was entered into by the Commonwealth government with the Australian Democrats. The key negotiator for the Australian Democrats was, of course, one Ms Cheryl Kernot, then a senator for Queensland. She was the person who at the time put the provision, which we are now seeking to remove from the act, into the law of this country. It was always envisaged that these amendments would proceed after a period of reflection. It was always planned, as part of the agreement with the Australian Democrats, that the inclusion of superannuation as one of the allowable award matters would be only a temporary measure, and that superannuation would be removed from the allowable matters in connection with the choice of funds legislative package. Indeed, that is exactly what is happening: we have had the choice of funds legislative package and now we are introducing legislation to give effect to what was originally intended.I often wonder why the Australian Labor Party seem to have it in for small businesses. Do they not appreciate that small business is the backbone of the Australian economy? The workers referred to by the honourable member for Jagajaga are people who largely gain employment through small business. If we can continue to create the environment where every small business in Australia is able to put on just one extra worker, unemployment would disappear overnight. The opposition, in their purported support for workers, are effectively undermining the employment opportunities of workers. We, in the coalition, believe this is inappropriate.It is interesting to note that when the Aussie battlers, in unprecedented numbers, supported us in March 1996 they voted with their feet. They basically said how irrelevant the opposition was and they voted with us.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—They were hoodwinked, weren't they?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member for Jagajaga is the person who is seeking to hoodwink the Australian workers. I believe that the Labor Party will be rejected yet again at the next election.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There will be order in this chamber. The member for Jagajaga will have an opportunity to speak shortly.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly welcome the honourable member for Jagajaga being called to order. She is a person who has intruded into this debate on very many occasions with outmoded and rejected ideas.Mr Anthony interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—She is someone from the past, as the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) points out. She is someone who now does not represent the attitudes of the Australian working community. She is out of date. Basically, listening to the honourable member for Jagajaga is like going back into the industrial history books.It is entertaining but it is sad and tragic that a party that was once the party of the Australian workers is now the party determined to maintain and bring in legislation which will cast Australian workers onto the industrial scrap heap. This is the party that in 13 years of government put close to one million people out of work, and maybe it was two million people who were unable to find adequate work. Instead of saying that they got it wrong, what they are effectively saying is that they would have fixed it all up in the 14th year. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not a credible response. Their response to the bill currently before the chamber is pathetic. It is outdated, it is inappropriate and it is simply plain wrong.This legislation will simplify superannuation for business. It will continue the government's policy of removing red tape and giving business the opportunity to spend as much time as possible on what small business does best. That, of course, is being in business, being successful and creating jobs. This legislation will also enhance the continuing process of simplifying awards.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Hear, hear.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am pleased, as always, to have the support of the honourable member for Mitchell. This bill will remove complex detail. In fact, it fixes up mistakes that were left by the former Labor government and brings forward our industrial relations system into the next millennium. This legislation will remove the burden from employers of having to comply with an additional set of obligations. What we are doing is reducing the complexity of superannuation while ensuring that the superannuation rights of employers are actually being maintained. Minister Reith said:The Government's initiative will remove another layer of red tape whilst preserving the level of superannuation contributions for employees.The minister is saying that this is good legislation; he is saying this is beneficial legislation. It is not about stripping away rights from employees. If one listened to the unfortunate contributions by the honourable members who have spoken on the other side, one would think that this legislation is about bashing the Australian worker and denying rights to Australian workers, whereas what we are doing is removing red tape and bureaucracy by creating a situation where business will be able to spend more time on business, grow, invest and create jobs.The opposition has said also that we are trying to take away superannuation benefits. The opposition really is completely hopeless. One only has to refer to the Australian waterfront to see the sad impact of 13 years of Labor government—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Yes, terrible.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Mitchell is quite right to interject. When we look at the lack of competition and the productivity on the Australian waterfront, it is clear that this government is the only government prepared to do something. Those people who are in the Maritime Union of Australia are people who are destroying the job and superannuation opportunities of other Australian workers.It is now so costly to cross the waterfront in Australia that Australian businesses, Australian factories and Australian farms are finding it impossible to compete in the international marketplace. It is incredible that the opposition is supporting a situation where, in Australia, the stevedoring costs for loading ships amount to $5.60 per tonne, whereas in New Zealand it is a mere $2.20 per tonne. The difference is $3.40 per tonne. There is also an extra delay in Australian ports compared with the delay in New Zealand ports. In Australian ports, the ship turnaround time on average is nine days. In New Zealand it is four days, a five-day difference.I find it impossible to comprehend how the opposition could possibly support the rorting and the featherbedding that continues on Australian wharves. They made a tentative effort in government to fix it up and failed dismally. Yet now we find that the opposition are marching to the tune of the Maritime Union of Australia. What about the workers in Australian factories? What about the farm labourers? What about the people employed everywhere in Australia other than on the waterfront? What about a fair go for them? How on earth can the Australian Labor Party continue to argue that Australian jobs should be lost everywhere but on the Australian waterfront, while Australian waterside workers are holding the rest of the economy to ransom?The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has been given a responsibility by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). He has been given a mandate to fix the Australian waterfront—and we will fix it. In fact, a very important piece of legislation was introduced to the parliament today to go along the road of reforming the Australian waterfront. That legislation will ensure that the termination rights of redundant employees will be protected, including their superannuation rights.I think that everyone is sick and tired and has had a gutful of the way that opposition members trot constantly into this chamber and berate the government as being totally opposed to Australian workers. We are a party that supports Australian workers and reform of the economy. We inherited a black hole of $10.3 billion. We did not create the problem, but we are correcting it.We brought in worthwhile industrial relations reform to make sure that there is a better environment for employers and employees to sit down in the marketplace and talk about problems. We are seeking to fix up the Australian waterfront. The legislation before the chamber today, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 , seeks to remove an anomaly in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 which was put in, as a result of discussions with the Democrats, with the view that in due course it would be removed.This is good legislation. It seeks to cut red tape and reduce bureaucracy, while at the same time protecting the superannuation entitlements of Australian employees. It is beyond me, beyond comprehension and beyond understanding why the honourable member for Jagajaga and others are not supporting this bill. Instead, we look at their contributions and we find that they are talking about outmoded ideas—class warfare from the 1890s. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) said that this bill is being exposed as a vitriolic and unwarranted attack on thousands of Australian workers and their superannuation entitlements. Nothing could be further from the truth.People in Australia appreciate that members of parliament have genuine disagreements and that there is dissension at times between the two sides of the House. That is normal and natural in a robust democracy.Mr Cadman interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—What is not normal and natural, as the member for Mitchell points out, is the way that the Labor Party comes into the parliament and distorts the truth, weaving a web of deceit in this matter and wrongly claiming that this government is bringing in a retrograde bill, whereas the community appreciates that this bill is positive.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—He is the ventriloquist and you are the dummy—right?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The members opposite, including the duty whip, ought not to interject, because they know that in this matter they have no credibility at all. The Labor Party have no credibility at all. The Labor Party, in relation to the bill before the chamber, have been exposed for what they are: a party of the past, bereft of ideas. All that they can do is come into the chamber, speaker after speaker, and talk about outdated notions. It is about time they realised that we are in 1998 and that we are moving forward to the next millennium. It is about time that they supported the continuing efforts of this government to fix up the industrial wreckage that was left by 13 years of Labor rule. I commend the bill to the committee.11:27:002909Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We had a major promise made by this Prime Minister (Mr Howard) before the last election, and that was that no worker would be worse off once he became Prime Minister. Another broken promise. It is another broken promise that today has seen 1,400 waterside workers lose their jobs; 1,400 families lose their livelihoods. All other workers in this country now know that their jobs and their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families are at risk. So much for the promises of this Prime Minister! Every worker, as they go to the next election, will have to remember what this government has done today. In conjunction with Patrick's this government has sacked 1,400 workers. That is what this government is all about and, not surprisingly, we have a bill before us that is also about scrapping conditions in the awards of Australian workers.What I want to do today is look at this bill from the perspective of women workers in particular, those in low-paid and casual jobs. Once again we have evidence here in this bill of this government's determination—just like their determination to sack 1,400 waterside workers—to erode the incomes and opportunities of working women. What this bill does is scrap superannuation as an allowable matter in awards. It is scrapping a condition in awards which women workers have relied on to make sure that in their retirement they could live in a little bit more comfort.There are two groups whose conditions are going to be so much worse off. One group comprises those working women who earn less than $450 a month. It is not a very high income. The superannuation guarantee does not apply to them, but what does apply to them are those awards and conditions that have been negotiated for them by their unions. Through their unions they have secured award conditions to ensure that they have superannuation payments. On top of their very low incomes of $450 a month they have had access to superannuation. But, of course, with this legislation before us today, these women workers are going to see those conditions disappear.This will hit such women workers as the 26,000 hospitality or textile, clothing and footwear workers—those who have only been able to get superannuation because it was in their relevant award. That is the only reason they had any superannuation cover. Part-time and casual workers earning less than $450 per month have only been able to get superannuation from their award because they do not get it through the superannuation guarantee. That is the case for women in the hospitality and textiles, clothing and footwear industries. It also covers such areas as banking and finance, gas industries and local government: all areas where women are working in such numbers now.I have an article here, from the Advertiser of 27 March this year, which talks about how many South Australian workers could lose their superannuation entitlements under the legislation that we are debating here right now: 50,000 South Australian workers could lose a total of $50 million—$50 million, in South Australia alone—in superannuation entitlements under the legislation that we are debating.Let us remember how these workers got their superannuation entitlement. It was not given to them on a plate. They had to argue and negotiate with their unions to get this superannuation entitlement. Of course, the way they got it was in lieu of a wage increase. Let us never forget that these workers gave up a wage increase because they knew that they would be better off by taking the superannuation entitlement and the employer contribution. They knew that, in their retirement, they would have a bit extra than the pension to live on.As a result of the legislation before us, they of course are going to lose that entitlement. Can you imagine that employers in the hospitality and textile, clothing and footwear industries, and in banking, finance, gas and local government, when they are no longer required to pay the superannuation as part of their legal requirements under the award, are going to give their employees a wage increase in lieu of losing their superannuation entitlement? Not on your nelly!There will not be any wage increases for these people who are earning less than $450 per month. That is what is going to happen. They are going to lose their superannuation entitlement, and that can only mean that these workers—who, in the main, are women—are going to be worse off. They will lose the three per cent that, up till now, because of their award entitlements has had to be paid by the employers into their superannuation entitlement. Of course, as a result, in their retirement they will be worse off.The bill also removes the role of the Industrial Relations Commission as an umpire in superannuation for those workers, and places the onus on employees. So the individual women who are part-time and casual employees working in all these industries that I have talked about are now going to have to go out and individually—and `individually' is what this government really likes to see—negotiate with each of their employers about their superannuation entitlement. Those opposite must be living on the moon if they think that these women have got the industrial clout to go by themselves and negotiate a wage increase or a superannuation entitlement. That is not going to happen. What is going to happen is that these women will in fact see their wages, their working conditions and their superannuation become so much worse.I want to put on the record the achievements over the last 10 years of getting women into superannuation, because a few facts would not go astray. When we introduced the retirement incomes scheme into this country, we had, in November 1988, just over one million women covered for superannuation. We had 4½ million without any coverage. In 1995 almost three million women had some coverage with superannuation. That is an extraordinary achievement, to see the numbers go from one million to three million women with superannuation coverage in that time. Almost 89 per cent of women working full time now have superannuation coverage. That is because of the changes that were made in 1988 to ensure that the vast majority of workers would get benefit from superannuation.What we had before that time, which is, of course, what this government wants to go back to, was that, sure, the workers at the top end of town—the managers, the senior public servants—had superannuation. But those who were working in the factories and in the restaurants and hotels, the textile workers, the bank workers they did not have superannuation. Those women did not have superannuation. They were going to look forward to a retirement of poverty. We were determined to put a stop to that and to make sure that the vast majority of workers could improve their lot and could contribute to their superannuation. Now almost 89 per cent of female full-time employees have superannuation. With part-time employees, it is just over 66 per cent. That is at November 1995. So we do have a very large number of people now covered by superannuation.We will be watching very carefully the result of this legislation before us, which will be the scrapping of superannuation as an allowable matter in awards, because those women who work part time and who do casual work, in particular, will lose their entitlements. That is why we object to this bill. That is why we will oppose this bill. Many of the government members who have spoken on this legislation keep asking, `Why is it that Labor opposes this bill?' I could not put it more sharply than this: we oppose it because it is taking away working conditions from some of the poorest workers in this country. We will not stand by and see that happen.We also need to look at what is happening to female employment, because the two things go together. I want to put on the record some other facts about what has happened to female employment during the period of this government, comparing similar periods over the last two recoveries. During the 1980s recovery—from November 1983 to August 1989—female employment expanded by 850,000 jobs. Although that accounted for only about 35 per cent of employment at the start of the recovery, women actually gained 55 per cent of the extra jobs created over that period.In the 1990s recovery, we have had a very different story indeed. What we have seen in the current recovery is that female employment growth has stagnated, with only 20,000 extra jobs created, whereas in the 1980s recovery we had a massively different number of jobs created for women. So not only do we have this government attacking the working conditions of women, we have the actual capacity of women to find work massively reduced by this enormous change in the opportunities that are available for them to find work.One of the main reasons that women are less likely to accumulate a decent level of superannuation throughout their working lives is their very different opportunities to find work. Another fact that those opposite should bear in mind in considering this legislation is that the average superannuation for women on retirement is currently around $17,000—not a very high sum at all—compared to $42,000 for men.The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia commissioned research into superannuation for women. It found that only 38 per cent of women working casual or part time actively planned for their retirement, as compared with 65 per cent of men. Women find it very hard to find a job and have wages that are considerably less than those of men. Let us just have a look at those numbers as well. Why is it that women's superannuation retirement incomes are so much less? It is all about their average weekly earnings being so much less. Average weekly earnings for women are around $450, whereas for men they are around $700. No wonder their superannuation retirement income expectations are so much less.This government wants to do nothing to improve the opportunities for women to get more work. We have seen female employment stagnate during this recovery. We have seen massive increases in the price of child care, driving women out of the work force. Now, to top it all off, we have this government saying, in this legislation, `We don't want you to get a job. If you do get a job, it's going to be much more expensive for you to work, because your child-care bills will go up by $20 a week, and we don't want to do anything to help you save for your retirement. We are actually going to take superannuation out of awards so that you can go and negotiate those conditions yourself.' That will not happen. What will happen is that women will be worse off. That will be the direct result of this government's legislation that is before us.Women who work part time are much more likely to spend their wages on their families, not on their retirement savings. What this government has done is to make it so much more necessary for women to spend their hard-earned incomes on their families. Whether it is child care, health care or education, costs have risen dramatically under this government's changes to all of those areas.The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia concluded that the government's proposal that workers on between $450 and $900 a month be able to opt out of super—which is an associated move that this government thinks is a great thing—is also not a good option for women. The gain after tax is paid and social security benefits are reduced is not large. So we are not going to see these workers any better off if they opt out of superannuation. What we are going to see is that their retirement benefits will be so much less and they will be so much worse off when they eventually retire.We will see what we have seen forever in the past, that the retirement experiences for men and women will be very different. That will now continue well into the future as a result of this government's changes. It will be the case that women will have to rely more on the age pension, while men will have higher incomes due to superannuation. As far as I am concerned, governments have a responsibility to prevent that from happening. But this government, with this bill, will actively encourage that division and that difference.This government is failing in so many respects when it comes to older Australians. It is failing to create jobs for women, so accumulating superannuation becomes so much more difficult for them. It is continuing to increase the price of child care. As we see in the papers today, women are just saying, `It's not worth it. I am not going to work for $2 an hour,' which is, effectively, what they are being forced to do because of their child-care costs. This government has done absolutely nothing to reduce the earnings gap so that women can earn a decent wage. We now have a real problem in this country, with part-time wages falling well behind increases in full-time wages. Who, in the main, are the part-time workers? They are, of course, women.On top of their having no job, on top of their having the price of going out to work increased, on top of their wages falling because they do not have the negotiating power as a result of this government's industrial relations changes, as a result of this bill many low-paid women workers will have their last avenue to get superannuation taken away by this government. There is only one conclusion possible and that is that this government, and this Prime Minister in particular, does not actually want women to work. It does not want women to build up superannuation. It does not want women to have the best quality of life in retirement. It is hitting women in particular—because it is women who live longer than do men—with the new nursing home fee of $4,380 per year, and, because of the changes that we have before us today, women will also have no superannuation.This bill must be opposed because it will hit women in low-paid jobs. It will hurt women by effectively giving them a three per cent wage cut—and this wage cut is to people who earn less than $450 per month. That is what this bill means. And it will hurt them just as much tomorrow when they find that their retirement incomes have disappeared. This bill should be opposed. It will be strongly opposed by the Labor opposition.11:46:002912Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—It is a pity that this legislation cannot be resolved in this place and I move:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2913r4532913Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Ms Worth:That the bill be now read a second time.11:47:002913Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—On the face of it, this Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 that we are now debating appears to be a savings measure. According to the financial impact statement contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the government will save over $101 million over the next four years by implementing the changes in this bill. The intention is that these savings will be achieved by providing an incentive, in the form of a lump sum bonus, for people of age pension age to defer retiring and claiming the pension for up to five years. The lump sump will be equivalent to between 9.4 per cent and 47 per cent of the pension that the person would have otherwise received, depending on the length of the period over which they defer retirement. A single person who defers retirement for the full five years and who would be entitled to a full age pension—I think those two things need to be remembered by those pensioners considering this move—after that period would receive a tax free bonus of $21,661 based on current pension rates.In a press release of May last year, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) said:This measure offers people who would otherwise retire and take up the Age Pension an incentive to keep working for up to five years, reducing the ratio of retired people to working people and increasing the financial wellbeing of older Australians.The opposition has very serious doubts about this proposal. We considered it and abandoned it when we were in government and this is one of the reasons that we will be referring this bill to a committee in the Senate.One of the biggest problems we had is that many people who have the option of deferring their retirement will, in any event, do so. These people now stand to get a windfall gain for doing what they would have done. This appears to have been recognised by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott). In a press release of 13 May last year, he said:A significant number of veterans and war widows already delay their retirement to beyond age service pension age.He went on:They will now receive a generous incentive payment for doing so.The second problem we have is that it is not at all clear that this is a savings measure. In the 1997-98 Social Security portfolio budget statements, it says:The size of the bonus was designed to be revenue neutral in terms of program outlays over the medium term, although this measure will provide savings over the first few years of operation.That is, the government will appear to be saving money until the time comes to pay out all these substantial bonuses. As I said, I understand that Labor while in government received advice that this proposal may even involve a net cost over the longer term.A third concern is that the numbers likely to be affected by the scheme, and the financial impact, also appear to be very unclear. The budget statements estimated that an average of 35,000 people a year would participate during the first three years of operation. This estimate was substantially revised within a very short space of time so that the government indicated in the Senate estimates committee of June 1997 that fewer than 3,000 people would be likely to take up the scheme in 1998-99, with that number steadily increasing to a little over 16,000 over the next four years.They were two estimates, 35,000 and 16,000, but by August 1997 these figures had been revised again. In the Senate estimates committee of that month, August 1997, the government said that over 3,500 people would participate in this year, 1998-99, increasing to just under 20,000 in the following four years. As everyone would realise, 20,000 is a lot fewer than 35,000. So the government is introducing this scheme which apparently, if you can believe the latest numbers that have been given to a Senate estimates committee, will see maybe 20,000 people benefit.However, strangely enough, the anticipated savings have not changed so dramatically. According to the budget statements, the net savings over the first four years of operation were supposed to be $87.2 million. This is compared to an estimate of $101 million in the explanatory memorandum. We seem to have a myriad of figures. It is not at all clear who is going to benefit, or how much it is going to cost. It is incumbent on the government to set out what the long-term costs of this scheme will be.What is clear is that a great many people will be excluded from this scheme on the basis that they will not be entitled to an age pension at the end of the deferment period. That is why so few people will benefit from the scheme, because at the end of the deferment period you have to be entitled to the age pension. One would expect this, given that many people of retirement age who have the option of continuing in employment beyond that age would have a greater superannuation entitlement or may have increased their assets.I want to draw the attention of members to some relevant information about the retirement characteristics of the population. I am quoting here from a research paper by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia which sets out the actual age of retirement for men and women. This was done in 1997. In fact, you see that the vast majority of people retire well before age pension age.I do not know whether the government will allow this to be tabled, but I think that the table that I have before me might well inform other members. We have nearly 11 per cent of men retiring before they are 45 and 49 per cent of women retiring before they are 45. In the next 10-year period, in the 45 to 54 age bracket, 17 per cent of men and 20 per cent of women are retiring.This is the critical period. In the 10 years when people are aged between 55 to 65 we see 57.8 per cent of men retiring and just under 10 per cent of women retiring. Therefore, the vast majority of working people have retired well before age pension age. Well before the age of 65, we have the vast majority of people retiring.Beyond pension age, we in fact have only 3.1 per cent of men retiring and, interestingly enough, a larger proportion of women, a bit over five per cent. So it is not surprising that very few people are going to benefit from this scheme, because the vast majority of people have retired, particularly in the 10 years before age pension age. As I said, I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The table read as follows—Table 1: Retirees by Age of RetirementMen (per cent)Women (per cent)Less than 45 years10.949.045 years to 54 years17.020.655 years to Pension Age57.89.7Pension Age10.24.6Beyond Pension Age3.1*5.1Never had Full Time Job**9.1Don't know**1.9*Total 100.0100.0Note: * corresponds to 10,000—40,000 cases ** corresponds to less than 10,000 casesPG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—It will also be the case that other people who continue to work beyond age pension age will be entitled to a reduced rate of age pension on the basis of their more modest superannuation investment and assets. However, the pension bonus they might expect to receive—and hence the incentive for participation in the scheme—will correspondingly be reduced. In short, the scheme will only operate as a real incentive to those who have little by way of superannuation entitlements or other income generating investments, who have relatively few assets and who would not have deferred retirement if not for the introduction of the scheme.I have to say that it is another one of this government's mickey mouse schemes. It will not benefit many people at all, mostly because the vast majority of people have already retired. Alternatively, those who have not retired will have superannuation which will put them outside the purview of this scheme. So it is not surprising that we see the government progressively cutting the number of people who will benefit from this scheme. As I said, the latest figure that has been presented to Senate estimates suggests that it is around 20,000 people.The reasons why so many people retire early are also important. Once we look at the reasons, we understand why it will be the case that so few of them will be able to benefit from this scheme. Eighty-one per cent of men and 64 per cent of women who retired early actually did so for reasons beyond their control—employment problems, health problems and compulsory retirement policies. Health problems are particularly significant. Employment reasons, such as a loss of employment, the inability to obtain full-time work and the ability to receive an early retirement package are also very significant. Reaching retirement age these days is a significant factor only for that small group of people who actually remain in the work force beyond pension age. They are the facts.The incentive proposed by this scheme will not encourage people to remain in the work force when they are in fact unable to continue working for reasons which they cannot control. This is a very significant point. If one of the main reasons that people do not continue working is that they are basically pushed out of the work force, no amount of incentive for individual workers post age pension age will have much effect.If the government were serious about giving people a chance to stay at work, particularly post age 55 when so many people retire, it would need to target both employer attitudes and the labour market conditions for older workers. But there is nothing in this bill and nothing in the actions taken previously by this government that point to anything in that direction.In fact what we have seen from this government is a major change to the social security arrangements which forces workers over the age of 55 to leave the work force. The situation introduced by the government is that if you have been on unemployment benefits for more than nine months and you have some superannuation, you basically have to use up your superannuation before you will get any further help from the government. These people will not get help to find another job, and they are effectively being told by this government, `That is the end of you. Get out of the way.'That is really what this government is all about when it comes to older workers. It is not doing anything whatsoever. There is no employment program and no specific assistance to get these older workers back into a job. We in fact see these workers over the age of 55 and, if only these members would go out and speak to these workers, they would know how distressed they are by this change to social security that this government pushed through the parliament last year. They feel that this Howard government has thrown them onto the scrap heap. They do feel that you have moved the goalposts. They thought they were going to be able to stay in employment and keep contributing to their superannuation until they were 65 and ready to retire.But, of course, that is not what this government has done. What they have done is move the goalposts and said to people, `If you are over the age of 55 and you lose your job and you have some superannuation, not only will we not help you to get another job, we will force you to use up your superannuation.' They are the facts of what this government has done to older workers.Even if you are a bit younger and you lose your job, like the 1,400 waterside workers that lost their jobs today, if you are like that—1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Jagajaga has given us 10 minutes of vitriol. Could she at least vaguely relate some of the vitriol to the bill?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! There is no point of order. The member for Jagajaga.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very significant, given that we are talking about trying to encourage workers over the age of 65 to stay in the work force by a mickey mouse pension bonus scheme, that we look at a few things that lead up to whether or not people have any opportunity to get a job under this government.If you are over 55, you get thrown on the scrap heap by this government and forced to use up your superannuation. If you are under 55 and you lose your job and you have got some retrenchment pay that has been built up because you have annual leave entitlements and other redundancy payments, what this government says to you is, `You are not going to get any help until you are down to your last $2,500.' That is what this government is saying to Australian workers. You now have to be down to your last $2,500 before you will get any help from this government to get another job.What do we have from the government? We have them saying to people, `You get down to your last $2,500 before we will help you get a job, but if you are over 65 and you are on a pension'—which on the latest government estimates is about 20,000 people—`we will operate a mickey mouse scheme for you. We will operate a mickey mouse scheme for those 20,000 people who might be eligible'—of course, given the numbers have changed so often, we have really no idea how many people will be eligible—`we will give those people a bit of a chance. But for those workers who lose their jobs who have redundancy payouts, you get down to your last $2,500 before this government will give you any help.' They are the facts. That is what the Social Security Act says now. If you are over 55 and you lose your job, you too will have to go and use up your superannuation before you will get any help to find another job.Members opposite think it is a joke. That is what they think.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—No, we think you are the joke.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—You are the joke.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—They think it is a joke. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, they should go out and speak to these workers and their families who know full well who has moved the goalposts and which government it is that has made workers so much worse off in this country. They will not believe at the next election the promise that John Howard made to them before the last election which was that no worker would be worse off. Every worker who has lost their job under this government is worse off and every worker knows that and they will remind you at the ballot box.12:03:002917Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is always a pleasure following the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin). It is a bit like TV in the afternoon: it is like the news following the fiction. The member for Jagajaga suggests that we should talk with some of the constituents. She might want to explain why her office has referred constituents to me, when they have contacted her office about assistance, and then we will understand who is talking to whom.Let me talk now about some of the issues that the member for Jagajaga mentioned. In her attack—if you could loosely use that term—on this measure that has been overwhelmingly welcomed by the mature end of the labour market, she is basically saying that only 20,000 to 35,000 people will benefit. Well, they are important Australians, they are important people, as are all Australians. That is something that this government has long put as a hallmark, that it is not about just pandering to minority groups, that it is about looking after everybody's interests.Another thing that needs to be pointed out to the member for Jagajaga is that this is not the only proposition or the only measure that is being enacted by the government. There are a whole lot of other reforms, which she seems not to be aware of. Through the whining vitriol that she likes to indulge in she could not possibly hear what people are suggesting to her as the facts, and that may be the problem. I could probably help her with some of those issues.She talked about how people at the end of being involved in the pension bonus scheme might not be eligible for the bonus payment, and that that is somehow a weakness in the proposal, that people might choose to work to support themselves. I can understand why the left of the Labor Party might think it is terrible for someone to support themselves. I can understand why they might be so offended and so disgusted by a proposition that people, through their own endeavours, support themselves. Isn't that a horrifying proposition, that they support themselves by going back to work, by making a productive contribution to the Australian work force and to our nation. That is horrifying to the member for Jagajaga.The member for Jagajaga is saying that they might miss out on the bonus at the end of the time because they will no longer be eligible for income support. Let me remind colleagues in this place, and the member for Jagajaga, that we are talking about a single person having an income of $820 per fortnight. If they were in a position to apply their skills, their wit and their ability to develop the capacity to support themselves in retirement, and earn $820 a fortnight to do so and therefore not be eligible for the benefits, is that something to decry?I would have thought it would be a desirable thing that people, through their own efforts, are able to support themselves, but the member for Jagajaga seems to think that that is a terrible thing and that we should be concerned. I mean, a single person would have an income of $820 per fortnight and a couple would have an income of $1,370 per fortnight. With respect to assets, the figure for a single person with a home is $245,750. For a single person with no home, they can have assets of $335,750. If working an extra couple of years enables a person to accumulate that capacity to support themselves, we should be encouraging that.I would not have thought that was weakness in the scheme; I would have thought that was a strength of the scheme—giving people the opportunity to accumulate that capacity to support themselves. In the event that they are not able to, there is a bonus there to encourage them to at least have a go. It seems that the member for Jagajaga would rather have policy settings that discourage people from supporting themselves.She talked about how difficult it is for some people in the mature end of the labour market to find employment. I refer her to a copy of a speech I delivered which identifies that mature age unemployment is a concern for this country but that there are things that can be done to make sure that those people find their way back into the work force. The thing that should not be done is exactly what the member for Jagajaga has done, and that is to talk down those people, to somehow convey the point to employers that people over the age of 50 or 55 or even, in some of the statistics, over the age of 45 are so unemployable that they should not be looked at. That is the point that the member for Jagajaga is running with; she is trying to talk down the ability of those people and make them sound like they are unemployable.They are not unemployable; they are skilled and they are experienced. The research shows that a balanced work force is one that has some young people, spritely people—like those on the government side here, and I will include those opposite out of courtesy to the member for Bruce (Mr Griffin); although, he does look tired some days—and perhaps some people around my vintage, as a complement to the work force, and some mature age people. They are an asset to an employer, not a liability like the member for Jagajaga would seem to suggest.Her other `attack' on this proposal is that, under the Labor government, there were positive incentives for people to jump out of the work force early and take early retirement. We are saying, `Think about your future. You might be able to enjoy a better standard of living in retirement if you continue to use your skills in the work force.' The member for Jagajaga is offended by that proposition as well.Is it little wonder that those opposite are the laughing-stock of Australian politics because they have no ideas? I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are trying to look as poker-faced as you can and I know that I am probably touching a few issues with you here. Thank you for giving me the chance to do that. Those opposite have no ideas. They just want to attack, carp and whine. That is their substitute for policy, whereas the government is trying to remove those negative incentives that existed under the former government and do something about them. This is part of that measure.As the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) noted in his second reading speech:The proposed introduction of the pension bonus scheme through this bill fulfils another election commitment by the coalition government.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—That makes two.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—That is two today; two election commitments fulfilled today. Thank you for your interjection, the member for Bruce. That is right. Two today is not bad. We are just past lunchtime. Imagine what we could do by the end of the day. It comes shortly after the recent March pension increase, which was described by Edith Morgan of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation as `significant'. She might have been looking for the word `magnificent', but `significant' is good.This bill does far more than simply keep an election promise. It is one of a number of efforts by this government to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy being propelled by the member for Jagajaga that early retirement is something that is good for every Australian worker. It is not. Some people choose to do that. Some do not. Some like to continue working while they are able to. We encourage that. This bill before the House today is about giving people back that choice, not robbing them, as was the case under the former government. The Howard coalition government is about providing that choice for workers. That includes those people in the mature end of the labour market.I have mentioned previously that report, Profiting from maturity, released by Jobs East. It emphasised what a wonderful contribution mature-aged employment can provide to the workplace: balance, experience, skills, a calming effect on younger guns in the workplace. We need a bit of that in the Labor Party—the calming of some of the younger guns. We see this in the planned commencement of real choice for superannuation funds and in a number of other measures that have been debated in this place.Perhaps more importantly, given the steady ageing of the Australian population, we see the coalition's display of choice in this area of when people wish to retire and are nearing retirement age as truly a responsive measure to the changing conditions of our economy. The bill allows those of pensionable age to register and defer their retirement by working a minimum of 20 hours a week for 48 weeks a year, although this requirement of a total of 960 hours paid work can be worked over a shorter or a longer time frame within the year. That is important.When this announcement was made, people were contacting my office saying, `We want to know more about it.' In the community that I represent, we have some highly skilled people who almost had their lives ruined by the Labor Party during the recession we had to have. These are people that have run their own businesses; they have been captains of industry; they have been highly regarded as skilled professionals who had their lives almost destroyed, particularly those people who had invested in their own business. Their superannuation, their retirement nest egg, was robbed from them by the Labor Party during the recession we had to have. Many of those people had worked 20 years accumulating value in their businesses, only to see it all disappear. They were facing, under the former government, compulsory retirement and policies that actually discouraged people from working when they were able to. They were faced with that and wondering how to provide for their retirement.This is like a breath of fresh air to those people. They can continue to work after retirement age, knowing that they will either be in a position to accumulate this sort of capacity to support themselves that I mentioned earlier or will have this bonus at the end of their applying themselves and being taxpayers a little bit longer, making a contribution to the productive capacity of Australia.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—They could go on an overseas trip.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—They might wish to go on an overseas trip. Or, if they are living in the electorate of the member for Bruce they may wish to purchase a property in the electorate of the member for Dunkley.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—They could come up and visit me in Cairns.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Or they could visit the member for Leichhardt in Cairns. This is true. There are a whole lot of other options that they can enjoy in their retirement at a time that they choose. That is something that we should be encouraging, in my view.For each year in which the pension is deferred, a bonus of 9.4 per cent of the pension is payable. A single pensioner deferring retirement for five years who was eligible to receive a pension at the maximum rate would receive a pension bonus of $21,250. The maximum payment for a pensioner couple would be $33,450. That would provide a very nice trip to Cairns.The point that also seems to have been missed by the member for Jagajaga is that, while people are seeking to accumulate that bonus, they are working. They are earning an income.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—They are contributing.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—They are not only contributing to the productive capacity of this nation but are probably paying taxes too. They would be paying taxes. They would be engaged in the community. We know that working improves their health status and their sense of wellbeing. There are multiple layers of benefits through this proposal.Some unpublished Bureau of Statistics labour force figures for August 1997 show that men and women have different work force experiences at close to retirement age—and members here may care to contrast some of this information with the line that the member for Jagajaga was running. In the 60 to 64 age bracket, the years before men can presently qualify for the age pension, 121,000 of the total 360,000 males of this age, or about a third, are still in full-time paid employment. Hallelujah! Congratulations to them! We are working to give more of that group employment status. Under seven per cent are unemployed and of the remainder about 52 per cent are not in the labour force. In the 65 to 69 age bracket, which is the period of life broadly covered by the pension bonus scheme, 18 per cent are in full-time or part-time work.I am encouraged that this measure will see this percentage increase. I am encouraged by some of the great improvements on the employment front that will encourage people with skills in that age bracket to re-enter the labour market. That is what has been happening in the electorate I represent. Not only have we seen 25,000 new jobs on the Mornington Peninsula since the election of the coalition government, but the participation rate has gone through the roof. People who had their enthusiasm, their excitement and their sense of self-worth absolutely destroyed by the Labor party through the recession we had to have—and other measures that attacked working people in this country—have seen the light and, encouraged by a coalition government, are back in the work force and, more particularly, they are finding jobs. It is a great thing to see, particularly on the Mornington Peninsula, the area that Mr Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, and I represent.For women in the 55 to 59 age bracket, which is at the higher end—within the years before the present pensionable age of 61 for women—the picture is markedly different. Of the 423,000 in this age bracket, 252,000, or just under 60 per cent, are already not in the labour force.And it is understandable that that is the case, given the carnage that the Labor government caused their employment prospects. Eighty-seven thousand, or 20 per cent, are employed full time, and 17 per cent are employed part time, with five per cent unemployed. In the age group 60 to 64, only 18 per cent work either full time or part time, with more women, unlike men, working part time. So there is plenty of scope to encourage those people able to make a contribution back into the work force, if that is their choice.Compare this with August 1990 when 46 per cent of Australian males aged 60 to 64 were still in paid employment and 32 per cent of Australian women were actively in the work force and it would appear that more Australian men are retiring early. But, conversely, greater numbers of women are staying on at work later in life. This is a pro-women measure.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—You would not have seen that—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—No. You would have heard `Back to the kitchen' and those sorts of disgusting remarks; there has been a shopping list of disgusting remarks from the Labor Party as they get into gutter politics as a substitute for good policy like this.Way back in 1971, over 75 per cent of male Australians 60 to 64 years old participated in the work force. So effectively we have lost about a third of this age group from paid work. So, looking back in time and making the comparison, we had a third more people doing what this measure seeks to encourage. When the member for Jagajaga questions the spread of beneficiaries, she is obviously ignoring the historical fact that we had a greater proportion of people in this age group still engaged in the labour force some time ago.I would contend that those policies we mentioned earlier of the Labor government that effectively encouraged this group out of the work force have had a lot to do with this change in the proportion that are still working in that age group. We have lost an amazing array of talent, experience and life skills from this group of Australians that could be of enormous benefit in the work force.As Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security, noted—and congratulations to her: she is doing a great job—women will be particular beneficiaries of the bill. This is because women typically work a few years, probably have a family and possibly return to work, although many choose either to work full-time or to stay at home full-time raising their families. That is their choice. Again, it is another choice that the coalition is encouraging. Typically, women have far less access to superannuation than men do, not only because of their work patterns but also because of the way continuous superannuation contributions compound in terms of its value and benefits; and so broken periods of work are often quite a disincentive and have a significant negative impact on the accumulated benefits.While participants in the pension bonus scheme will have to maintain a work record, this small amount of paperwork is compensated for by the sheer enjoyment that I think many older people will have of returning to the work force, being able to make a constructive and productive contribution to their communities and also supporting their own lifestyle choices. Importantly, the government originally wanted to set a figure of 25 hours work per work but, after community consultation, this was adjusted. So the government is listening and it is being responsive to what it is being told.The work force attachment of people participating in the pension bonus scheme will remain strong, but more people will be eligible to join the scheme if they choose. Clearly, looking back in history, there is an enormous capacity for that age group to re-engage in the labour force. As the senator noted a couple of months ago, many part-timers work three days of, say, 7½ to eight hours each per week, and they will now be eligible under this package. That is great news.The pension bonus scheme is not just about a savings measure. This is about an incentive for people who are able to make a productive contribution in the work force to do so. Transmitting knowledge from older people to younger workers is an essential element of improved productivity in both the private and public sectors in Australia. There is a great amount of corporate knowledge, experience and wisdom residing within the group of people that are the prime beneficiaries of this measure. We should do all we can not only to support their choice to continue to be productive in the work force, if that is their desire, but also to recognise the enormous benefits that come to the workplace and the Australian economy from having these able people actively engaged and contributing in the workplace. Balanced work forces in enterprises provide dividends for everybody.The pension bonus scheme is not for everybody, but it is a choice. I am confident that having those people wanting to exercise the choice and consider continuing to work longer, if that is their choice because of the lifestyle benefits that they can enjoy in retirement, is something that is worth this entire parliament getting behind. I am sure that many of the older and more mature end of the labour force in the Dunkley electorate will see the merit of this—as those who have contacted my office for further information have already said. This scheme will benefit them, it will benefit the workplace and, overall, it will benefit Australian society.12:23:002922Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—First of all, let me say that the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) obviously has been attending the same training school as Senators Bolkus and Ray have: Richo's training school called `Whatever it takes'—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.23 p.m. to 12.39 p.m.As I said before the division, it is certainly evident that the member for Jagajaga has gone to the same training school as Senator Bolkus and Senator Ray. She has been trained by her ex-colleague Graham Richardson, using the old saying `Whatever it takes.' Facts are quite irrelevant. She has run scare campaigns on a number of government policies in recent time. She frightened the living hell out of our aged. She certainly gave a fright to mums in child care. She feels that this is a fair target. Facts are irrelevant. She is continually carping and whining. If it frightens people, it has achieved the desired outcome.I rise here today to strongly support the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 . This bill represents a fundamental change to the way we approach social security. It recognises that Australia is changing socially and demographically, and that it certainly has an ageing population. This bill aims to provide a win-win situation. It offers incentives for older Australians who are eligible for age pension or equivalent veterans affairs payments to defer their pensions and be rewarded financially for making that choice. At the same time it provides a net financial gain to the community by keeping people in the workplace.As the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson) continually stressed throughout his contribution, it is a matter of choice, absolute choice. This bill is yet another example of the positive steps that the government is taking to offer Australians that choice, flexibility and financial security, while at the same time addressing their real concerns. I would put this bill in the gold star legislation category. It is a great initiative and it is certainly very different from the policy void that we see on the other side.This bill recognises that the Australian workplace is changing, with more people wanting to keep working past the standard age for retirement. It also recognises the crucial role of women in the workplace, a role that deserves equal recognition and opportunity. It is disappointing that the member for Jagajaga continually bags this legislation, buckets the whole thing and makes no effort to acknowledge the benefits that are there for that group of very special Australian women.The member for Dunkley made a very relevant comment, that older Australian women did not have an opportunity in the past to access superannuation schemes that were equivalent to the superannuation schemes of their spouses.Another point that should be made is that women tend to live longer than men, and as they start to age a lot of them lose their partners. My mum is in exactly the same situation. She recently lost her husband. For years and years she reared her family, and I must say she did a fine job too, and I bear witness to that. She has reared her family and has now come to a point where she has grandchildren. She has hardly ever been in the workplace. Suddenly she now finds herself on her own. Her family has gone; they have their own families. She is very fit and very active.She should be in a position now, as are a lot of women in this situation, to get into the workplace. Had she been 55 or 56 she would suddenly find herself back in the workplace but with no opportunity of building up any superannuation. She would have no opportunity of going past 61. She would be turfed out when in fact she would be very active and very fit.People in that situation should have the opportunity of going into the work force, using their life skills and getting a little bit of a nest egg together, something that they can achieve, something that they can do in their later life. That is fantastic for them because at the end of the day they have suddenly got enough money to give themselves a trip somewhere, or they can pay off the mortgage on their home if they are left with a mortgage.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Or go on a holiday to Victoria.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—Never to Victoria, always further north.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It is all about dignity.CK6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—It is dignity. You are right there, absolutely right. The member for Moreton has that spot on. It gives them that sense of independence. It gives them that sense of worth. I think that this legislation is going to be absolutely crucial for the older women in this country, and for that reason it needs to be embraced and applauded.It is important to explain at the very start that the bill, as I say, provides for choice: the pension bonus scheme is voluntary; eligible pensioners can weigh up their own personal circumstances and choose whether or not to take their immediate pensions or defer their pension and remain in the work force.The economic benefits are very evident for the government and for those Australians who take part in the pension bonus scheme. The pension scheme will operate in the following way. The scheme will provide a tax-free lump sum payment to a single person or couple that defer their pension, including a provision for one member of the partnership to meet the requirements for both people. A tax-free lump sum bonus will be paid to the person or couple when they stop working. The current rates for a single pensioner under the scheme will be a tax-free lump sum of $21,250 after deferring the pension for five years. Under current rates for a couple who both qualify for the scheme it will offer a combined bonus payment after five years of $35,450 tax free.Superannuation is something that is relatively new to the work force. My dad worked in the railway all his life and did not have a superannuation scheme. When he was compelled to retire he got a gold watch and, from memory, something like $4,000 or $5,000. That is all he got and he had to go on to an age pension, living in a housing commission home. They had their rent recognised as a deposit and they were basically paying it off.There were lots of people in that situation, because superannuation is very new. You are getting a lot of people that are coming out of the work force now that have not had the opportunity of superannuation schemes. These are the people that are suddenly going to have an opportunity to continue for another five years and at the end of that five years, apart from getting the benefits of a continued wage well above pension rates, have a lump sum payment—as I say, $35,000 for couples! I think it is great. It gives them an opportunity to pay off their house when they get out of this. They have that lump sum or, as I say, go on a holiday or do something or spend it on their family.That is an opportunity that could not be afforded to them under normal circumstances because they would be tipped out of the work force—forced out of the work force basically to vegetate on a pension on which it is very difficult for them to survive. And if they do not have family around them to support them I can assure you it is subsistence living.The amount of the bonus is calculated according to individual personal circumstances. As a guide the scheme calculates the amount payable by taking the annual basic rate of the age pension multiplied by the bonus percentage, 9.4 per cent per year, multiplied by the number of extra years worked.For example, take a person who delays retirement for five years. If this person is granted a pension at the maximum rate, currently $9,042.80 per annum, the amount will be multiplied by five—and try to save $35,000 in five years out of an income of $9,042! Not a hope in hell. This is multiplied by the pension bonus. In this example the single pensioner will receive the maximum single lump sum of $21,250. The number of extra years allowed for payment purposes will be limited to a maximum of five and will stop accruing after the person has turned 75. The person must be registered as a member of the scheme in line with the current retirement age of 61 for women and 65 for men. A work test will apply with a requirement for an average of 20 hours per week over a period of 48 weeks. This can be aggregated into 960 hours with two-thirds of this work having been carried out in Australia.Domestic duties and management of family investments will not be counted as meeting the work requirements. The guidelines relating to the eligibility for a pension apply in respect of disposal of assets. People will be eligible to receive their full pension entitlement—and this is important—once they leave the scheme.The bill is revolutionary. It will change the way people think about government and about the social security system. It is estimated that the Australian nation will save approximately $100 million over the next four years by people's voluntary participation in this scheme. It will reduce the ratio of retired people to working people and it will keep proactive Australians in the work force.The bill is about social reform. We know well that people do not lose their ability to work once they have reached the mandatory retirement age. We see it all the time where people, if they are forced out of the work force, and particularly those who are active and have worked hard all of their life, quickly lose interest in life and, sadly, die much earlier than normally would have been the case had they had the opportunity to continue to participate in what they had enjoyed doing all of their life. I think this scheme is very much, as the member for Dunkley said, a health benefit for our older Australians. It will certainly keep them on their toes.Another thing is that we have a desperate shortage of tradesmen in this country. Over the years, tradesmen have started to disappear. These are the people who have a lifetime of skills. They have gone through the old school of learning their trade—not through academic qualifications but by getting out there at a young age and doing the job. These are the guys with the ability and the knowledge, but this knowledge is being lost as these people are forced out of the work force.Unlike the Working Nation that we had a couple of years ago—that roundabout which generated nothing—we now have our national training and apprenticeship scheme, which is working. We are getting a lot more kids into the work force now. The benefit for these kids of having these older tradesmen pass on their skills is going to be absolutely immense. As I said, a lot of these older guys have learnt their skills in the harder years. They have so much to share with the younger generation. It is a waste to put them out to pasture, basically, without giving them the choice of whether they want to continue to pass those skills on to our younger Australians.I suggest that nearly all Australians would have somebody in their extended family who has continued to be actively involved in work beyond the date that their retirement was supposed to be due. I certainly know of many people. I have relatives who are self-employed, who have worked, and are working, on the land into their 80s. Unfortunately, if they had been working for one of the local councils or for the railway, or something like that, they would have been compelled to retire. As soon as people hit the age, on the day of their birthday, they are given their gold watch, a handshake and then they are shown the door. It is devastating for them. This scheme gives them an opportunity to stay in there, and certainly it will be great for their self-esteem and their self-worth.Growth in further education will, I believe, make this legislation increasingly important for future generations. More Australians, after investing in their education, will want flexibility and the ability to apply their skills in the workplace for extended periods of time. It is also important to recognise that people are going back into the education system at an older age. There are a lot of Australians going back into education in their 50s. They want the opportunity to be able to use those new found skills that they have got through the education system and this is a great opportunity for them to do that. This gives them an extra five years to be able to home in and get a benefit out of those skills that they got at that later age.The bill recognises that, with the improvements in medicine and general health, people are living much longer and are quite capable of working longer if they so choose. The bill specifically addresses the needs of people who qualify for the old age pension. Recognition must also be given to the many people who are actively engaged in voluntary work. The contribution by those Australians, although falling outside the intent of this bill, is no less important to our community's wellbeing. When we are addressing issues of this nature, I think it is important that we at least acknowledge the contribution of those very worthy Australians who are prepared to give their time free—the volunteers. This place would not work without them.It will come as no surprise to the people of Australia that it is the coalition government that is putting forward this legislation. Only the coalition is capable of delivering to Australia practical, workable solutions that have sound financial and social base.This is a contrast to Labor who, after 13 years of government, left very little impact, offering no policy innovation like the bill before the House today. Their legacy to the people of Australia was the debt level that grew to a factor of 10, from $9 billion to $90 billion. I have raised this point because it is the fundamental reason why Labor has continually struggled to provide positive innovative solutions for Australians. The people on the other side have no connection with the real world, no connection with small business and no consideration for regional Australia.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—They just did not know.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—They just did not know. People on the other side have constantly ignored the efforts of small business in the rural community and have failed to learn, from their positive example, that people engaged in these occupations—the vast majority of Australians—are capable and have been working well beyond retirement for many, many years. Labor's only connection is with their very well-fed and secure mates in the union movement leadership.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Like the MUA.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—Like the MUA. Thank you, member for Moreton. It is a leadership that ordinary Australians are also saying does not provide practical solutions to the issues confronting them.This bill will provide a win-win situation for all Australians. This bill will ensure that the people retain the right to an old age pension, but also have that very important choice to defer their pension and receive a tax-free lump sum for making that choice.This bill is innovative, as I said before, and deserves a gold star and the top shelf. However, I believe that all possible safeguards have been put in place to protect projected savings from the scheme. The government will, if necessary, make further legislative amendments to ensure that the integrity of the scheme is not in any way compromised. This is a long-term program. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 4.31 p.m.16:31:002926Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 provides for the pension bonus scheme. This is a proposition that has been put by the government and has been warmly received by many people across the senior Australian sector as a sign of choice, equity and dignity and as a signal of true worth of the individual, especially for the individual who may choose to stay in the work force past a mandatory retirement date.If somebody decides not to put their feet up—and, justifiably, after a long working life, many people do choose to put their feet up at the earliest possible retirement age—and to continue in the work force, it is only right that they are given some sort of reward for that effort, and that is what the pension bonus scheme bill is all about. In fact, under the scheme, anybody who works beyond retirement age is entitled to a tax free lump sum payment of up to $21,250 when they actually start receiving the pension.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt be impressed by that in 30 or 40 years time when you actually decide to retire from the work force. I think it is a tremendous scheme for those who choose to stay in the paid work force. The concept is right and it is also important to the Australian economy for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the wide range of skills which could be lost to our national industries and to our national good as a result of those who reach a certain age and who are automatically deemed to be no longer needed in the work force.It is probably worth noting that, amongst those who have both the mental and physical capacity to stay in the work force, as well as the personal inclination, and who may be even more encouraged because of this particular bill, we would probably find those people the very productive types: those who have an absolute willingness and determination to strive and continue to do their very best for the particular job that they are currently doing. And isn't that good, if we can maintain that kind of calibre in our work force?I think it is good from a social point of view for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that, amongst younger Australians, and particularly amongst younger Australian males, there is a need to have good peer influences—good role models—that they can follow. A lot of those role models can come from those who are at the older end of the work force, the people who perhaps would like to pass on some of these ethics, values and standards that they themselves had as junior workers and, in fact, reflect upon the olden days in some ways. There is nothing more encouraging to a younger person than to know that someone who is a little longer in the tooth is willing to put a bit of time and effort into them. So this bill before us today encourages those sorts of people to stay around.It is also good from a social point of view and an equity point of view for women, because it has certainly been the case as more women enter the paid work force and leave predominantly domestic duties behind them that they have found themselves at a natural disadvantage as far as superannuation, access to benefits, and so forth, are concerned.I think it is a fair proposition to put that women, in particular, tend to have their career structures interrupted because the woman is the one that physically carries the child if a couple decide to have a family. Often, she has to retire from the paid work force in the rearing of that child, especially in the early years. To be able to go back into the work force and to continue to accrue benefits in the form of superannuation down the track is also a good thing. It is great to see that encouragement to do so could flow from this bill.It is all about reward for effort, which is very important. A single person, for example, who delays retirement and continues to work for up to five years, and is subsequently granted an age pension at the maximum rate upon retirement, would receive a tax-free lump sum payment of $21,250, at the current pension rate of $9,042.80 per annum. It is a simple formula: the pension rate multiplied by the bonus of 9.4 per cent, multiplied by the number of extra years worked. It is a simple, easy to understand formula that is there as a form of encouragement to those who want to take up the offer. It will be particularly helpful for women and for small business owners as well.It is important to note, for those who are self-funded retirees and those who have put a lot of effort over their working life into saving funds, that there is much more that can and should be done for them. I think there will be some in my electorate who will find this bill frustrating for them, because they would like to think that they could also receive some greater reward for their effort in saving for their retirement. I can assure everybody in the Main Committee today, and those who may choose to read the Hansard, that I continue to work very hard within the government ranks because of my empathy, and indeed a deal of anger that I have on occasions, regarding the fact that self-funded retirees still are not getting the full range of benefits and the full range of access to benefits that those who are pensioned retirees get. I can assure those people in my electorate that many people on the government side—I am sure there are many on the opposition side too, but I am certainly aware of evidence on the government side—are putting the position constantly of a better deal for self-funded retirees.There are many reasons that self-funded retirees, for instance, should be boldly supported. Just as this bill provides for reward for effort, it is important to send a signal, particularly to younger Australians, that those who bother to put in the effort during their working years should later be able to get reward for that effort. From talking to a lot of people in my electorate, I know that there are those who say, `What's the point of putting money aside? What's the point of putting in all this effort? You just cop it in the neck upon retirement.'It is absolutely imperative that all levels of government follow through on this. In the Brisbane City Council, Lord Mayor Soorley has such a disregard for self-funded retirees that he has not given a rates discount to self-funded retiree property owners sufficient to match the rates discount given to pension retirees. It is a source of great anger, disappointment and frustration for self-funded retirees that Lord Mayor Soorley will not follow through with the notion of reward for effort such as the rewards for effort contained in this bill. It seems quite wrong to me that neighbours in a street, living next door to each other, having gone literally to the same workplace, when for 40 years one put aside money for the retirement years and one did not, should be treated differently in retirement. That is the case at all levels of government.I will certainly continue to press for fairer and better treatment of self-funded retirees. They are a group of citizens in our community who show a good example to younger people, having adopted the mantle of self-sufficiency, of looking after themselves. Along with a lot of other older Australians who continue to maintain private health insurance because they want the dignity and certainty that private health insurance provides, they are a group in the community that I support very strongly.I pay tribute to the Brisbane South branch of the Association of Independent Retirees. Their continual advocacy to me on the—MF4COBBMr Cobb—Hear, hear, they are a great branch.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—They are a great branch—I thank the member for Parkes—because they are strong advocates for what is right, what is fair and what is reasonable for retired persons, particularly independent retired persons in my area. I continue to keep dialogue open with them with a view of continuing to assist them.The bill before us today is a step in the right direction. It certainly does provide—again keeping the theme of reward for effort alive—an incentive to those in the work force who may care to take up the very clear offer from the government to reward the effort of staying in the work force a few years longer. I think what we have done generally for the area of retirement incomes and people who are in retirement is going to be only enhanced by this.We are managing from 1 July this year to bring in a savings rebate of $450 a person available on savings income such as interest and superannuation payments. In fact, the greatest benefit will go to those who earn less than $40,000. We have brought in a health insurance rebate which will go up to $450 a year for couples from 1 July this year. We have managed to ensure the pension will keep pace with community living standards by preventing the single rate falling below 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. This is a government committed to older Australians. This is a government prepared to put down policies which very clearly send strong signals to older Australians that there are rewards for efforts.There are obligations and responsibilities as well as rights for all of us. Older Australians have never been ashamed or afraid to walk away from their responsibilities. Those who want to take up the opportunity of working longer, providing lots of social benefits, skills and all of the things they can provide to younger members of the work force, should be rewarded. This bill does this. I commend it to the House.16:42:002929Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—I, too, welcome the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 . It is a very innovative bill and I congratulate the minister on presenting it to the parliament. It is very pleasing these days to be part of a government that is for the first time really focusing on doing things for elderly people. We have seen the recent increases in pensions for our elderly. We have seen policy put in place to lift the tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees. We have seen the savings rebate being brought in as legislation into this place. We have seen the health insurance rebate brought in. These are all things that help elderly people.On top of all that we have this in some ways relatively minor but still very important piece of legislation which will give incentive for people to remain in the work force if that is what they wish to do. The bill recognises that in a tangible way and rewards them for it. I suppose above all else it breaks down the barrier of age discrimination. People should be able to feel free to work on after 65 if they so wish. I remember going through university and doing a course with John Eccles Jnr. He was one of my co-students. His father won the Nobel prize for his work on transmission in nerve endings. When he became 65 years old, he could not work on in Australia. Sadly for this country, I thought, he had to leave Australia and go to America to continue on his good work in the peak of his life, when he was the most productive. He was still very fit physically and, obviously, very fit mentally. He had a great contribution still to make to the people who live on planet earth.I think the days when everybody had to shut down, retire and vegetate from 65 on are, fortunately, going. It is good to see the government recognising that. This bill fulfils an election commitment that we made. The bill simply means that a person who continues in the work force and does not draw the pension can defer—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 4.45 p.m. to 4.56 p.m.As I was saying before the division, a person who is otherwise entitled to a pension may have payment of that deferred by remaining in the work force and still receive a monetary recognition of that—by the formula that is contained in this bill—when he or she finally retires. But to qualify for this, a person must be a fair dinkum, shall we say, worker in the work force, working at least an average of 20 hours each week over 48 weeks of a year, equivalent to 960 hours per year, or the pro rata equivalent for a part year. People do not have to work every week of the year. As long as they fulfil that 960 hours throughout the year, they will receive the payments.It is interesting to look at the formula and how it is calculated. For example, in my calculations, a single pensioner who receives $9,042.80 a year—I believe it has gone up since then—has the figure multiplied by a factor of 9.4 per cent. That seems to be an unusual figure—why not round it out to 10—but the actuaries who actually work these things out felt that this was the accurate figure to bring in a revenue neutral bill over a period of time.If you multiply that single pension rate that I mentioned by 9.4 per cent, it comes out almost exactly at $850 a year. Then you multiply that by the number of years that you have deferred your pension squared. If you have worked one year, you square that and it comes out at one. So $850 by one comes out at a $850 tax-free bonus that you get at the end of the one year. If you defer it two years—two squared is four, so you multiply the $850 by four—that comes out at $3,400 tax free.The longer you defer your pension, the greater the benefit, of course, and after five years, which is the maximum permissible under this legislation, if you multiply $850 by 25—the 25 coming from the five years deferral squared—you are entitled to a tax-free payout of $21,250. That is a nice little nest egg for, say, someone who would be 70 years old.You might say, `That is a cost to the taxpayer.' It is not, of course, because having forgone the pension, which is over $9,000 a year, the taxpayer is actually saving in excess of $45,000 over five years. Of course, the person in the work force is also contributing to revenue because he or she would be paying tax, as well as remaining productive in the work force and producing something for this country. So it is a win-win situation all around.I think that it is such a good, beneficial and innovative scheme that I would like to commend to the government—because it is good for pensioners, good for the country, and good for the taxpayer—that the scheme not be limited to five years, but be extended forever, in a manner of speaking. Even if it were taken out to 15 years, that would mean that someone who would otherwise be due to retire at 65 could continue to remain working until he or she was 80.You might say that there would be very few in the community that would want to do that, and that is true. But nevertheless, there are a few. My own father is 87 years old, I think, and he is still in the work force, largely by necessity. I observe that even though his health is starting to get a little frail at this age, the mere fact that he has remained in the work force has actually been good for him. It has been good his health, for his mental agility and for his physical wellbeing.Therefore, I do not think we should discourage these things. Often when people hit the mid-sixties, they are—as I said with Sir John Eccles who won the Nobel Prize for medicine—at the very peak of their life in experience. They have accumulated the knowledge of all those years. It would be beneficial if we could give some incentive, albeit a relatively modest one, for them to continue in the work force. I have a table here which I have drawn up as to what the benefits would come to if they were extended to 15 years. I would like permission to have this simple table incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The table read as follows—PENSION BONUS SCHEME$9042.80 X 9.40 = $850No. of YearsPayout $Per Week $Age at Retirement1850 x 1 =85016.35662850 x 4 =340032.70673850 x 9 =765049.04684850 x 16 =13,60065.39695850 x 25 =21,25081.73706850 x 36 =30,60098.08717850 x 49 =41,651114.43728850 x 64 =54,401130.77739850 x 81 =68,851147.187410850 x 100 =85,002163.477511850 x 121 =102,850179.817612850 x 144 =122,400196.157713850 x 169 =143,650212.507814850 x 196 =166,600228.857915850 x 225 =191,250245.1980MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—For a person who remained in the work force for one extra year, receiving a benefit of $850, that would only work out at $16.35 a week. The government would otherwise be paying a single weekly pension of $173.90. If they stayed in the work force for five years, they would still be drawing on the taxpayer to a lesser extent than if they were receiving the full pension. The amount would only be $81.73 a week. Even if they were there for 10 years and entitled to a pay out of $85,000 tax free, if you divided that by the 520 weeks that they deferred receiving a pension, the $85,000 would only work out to an equivalent of $163.47 a week. That would still be less than what they would have been getting for the pension, and, of course, the taxpayers would have had the benefit of having that payment deferred.Even at 15 years, where the payment would be in excess of $191,000, something that would be very nice for an 80-year-old to look for, it would still only be costing the taxpayer on average $245 a week. Because of the deferral of the payment it would still only be a break-even amount, I believe. I consider the extension of this does have some merit. The government may look at that in the future and take it up. I have used as the example in my table someone who would otherwise be retiring at 65. I understand the retirement age for females is 61. It varies somewhat also for people who are on veterans payments.The other advantage of this piece of legislation is that it puts back into balance—slightly, but nevertheless assists in doing so—the reduction in the ratio of retired people to working people. This is one of the difficulties we are moving into as we approach the end of the 20th century and move into the next century where we will have an increasing number of people proportionately who are elderly and a decreasing number of people proportionately in the work force to support them. Deferring the retirement of people helps that problem to a degree. On top of that, it is particularly helpful for women, who often at that stage of life want to move into the work force on a fairly light duty basis. It also helps small family business owners. The ramifications are quite wide. If we can do this with a win-win situation, as I explained earlier, I cannot see why we would not leap at it. It is a very meritorious idea indeed.Some have said the last thing we want is for elderly people to remain in the work force when they should be getting out and making available jobs for young people, particularly when the youth unemployment rate is as high as it is. That would be a valid point if it were true to that degree, but it is based on the wrong premise.People who are in the work force at that age are usually in the work force at a very skilled level because of the amount of experience that they have built up over the years, so they are not displacing young people at all. In fact, you could even argue the reverse: if anything, because of the skills that they are still contributing to society, they may be actually creating jobs. So it is more a plus situation that we are advocating here, rather than a negative scenario. With those few words, I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) for bringing in this excellent bill and I commend it to the House.17:05:002932Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—I welcome the introduction of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998. It is important legislation in that it caters for the future of Australia by, in a small way, reducing the demands that will be made on taxpayers by allowing those entitled to the pension who can and wish to continue working to delay their retirement. In return, when they make a claim on their pension, they will be entitled to a bonus.Too often, decisions of government are made in terms of the next election and not the interests of future generations of Australians. This legislation will essentially not be fully effective until a few years time at the least, when pensioners will be taking up the bonus—well after the next election.It is well known that we have an ageing society. This means that we need to provide policies that accommodate the demographics of Australia in decades to come, not just the present. We need to ensure the burdens placed on taxpayers in the future are minimised by having in place today policies which will see that the needs of elderly Australians in the future are properly addressed. This bill is but one part of a whole package of policies that will be needed in addressing those needs, just as our aged care policies have been developed with the future in mind, not the next election.This government had the guts to make the tough but necessary decisions with our aged care policies, whereas the Labor Party when in government failed to make those difficult decisions, leaving that burden to us but then seeking to score political points for us fixing up the problems caused by their own ineptitude. Again, those policies will see the benefits accrue over time, but not necessarily immediately.The pension bonus scheme was announced as part of our policies during the federal election campaign. The scheme will provide an incentive for older Australians who wish to stay in the work force beyond retirement to do so. With our ageing population, governments of the present generation need to develop policies dealing with the demands that elderly Australians in the future, who will make up an increased proportion of the whole population, will make on the taxpayer. If we do not make decisions today to cater for our ageing population there is no guessing what burden future generations will carry in providing for their needs.While some areas of public policy will require those in the future providing in advance for the benefits they receive, the pension bonus scheme is a positive policy which allows those who are enjoying their employment in their older age to continue with their work and then enjoy a tax-free lump sum bonus when they finish their work, in addition to commencing receipt of their age pension or veterans affairs entitlement. This will relieve the burden on government, but also be a bonus to those who take up the pension bonus scheme.I have had people suggest to me that a solution to our unemployment problem is to reduce the age of retirement. Unfortunately, that is a very simplistic solution for it will only add to the burden on taxpayers to provide for a greater pension outlay. On the contrary, our society can benefit by older people working longer. If employers know that employees have a financial incentive to work beyond retirement age, there would be less reluctance to employ people, say, in their 40s and, in particular, in their 50s.Furthermore, there are those in the work force who still feel young enough to continue working despite being the age of retirement. This legislation is of particular benefit to those people—and there are a significant number of them in our population. By allowing older people to work beyond the normal age of retirement, and giving them the incentive to do so, we are providing greater freedom in the work force. Previously, those who worked beyond the age at which they were entitled to the pension had no incentive to do so, perhaps other than job satisfaction.An ageing population also equates to fewer taxpayers servicing a larger populace. By allowing older people to work longer, and providing the incentive for them to do so, we reduce that burden. To ensure this is a viable policy, the government has provided a more than reasonable incentive: a bonus of 9.4 per cent of their pension entitlement will be paid as a lump sum for each full year of work beyond retirement age, where work is defined as paid employment for at least 25 hours per week. The bonus is payable for up to five years of work beyond age pension qualifying age.To maintain the integrity of the policy, and avoid the abuse of it, registration will be required by those who intend taking up the pension bonus. This scheme has already been welcomed by a number of pensioners in my electorate. One gentleman whom I have spoken to, who is beyond pension age, intends continuing working to take up the bonus, and not just for that but also because he is enjoying his employment and it will add to his savings in retirement. He will enjoy his present income and, when he retires, receive a bonus on top of his pension. The bill will enable people to have a greater choice as they approach retirement. It will provide those who take up the bonus with greater savings in their retirement. It is a win for those pensioners taking it up but it is also a policy that is beneficial to taxpayers. I commend the bill to the House.NaN:00:002933Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I was not going to speak on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 but I think I should because it is an illustration of a number of measures that the current government has put in place to enhance the quality of life of older Australians. We must also recognise, as the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) said, the changing demographic of Australia. That changing demographic has two aspects to it: on the one hand, Australians are living longer; and, on the other hand, there will be fewer Australians to look after them. This poses a dilemma.I was looking at some statistics only a few days ago that show that, at present, there are eight Australians of working age available to support one person over 65. In a generation's time, only five Australians of working age will be available to support one Australian over 65. Then in the generation beyond that, only three Australians of working age will be available to support one Australian over 65. The writing is on the wall and it is something that we should recognise very early in the piece.The pension bonus scheme does two things. Firstly, it acknowledges the right of older people who are healthy and focused, and who wish to work, to be able to work. Secondly, in doing that, it makes them contributors to society by way of their income tax payments. It also means that they are not a drain on the taxpayer by way of receiving a pension before they necessarily need to do so.As previous speakers have pointed out, this is quite a generous scheme. It delivers 9.4 per cent for each year that a person works on to a maximum of five years. For a person working for five years, there would be a lump sum payment of some $21,250. Another example is that of a single person who delayed their retirement for three years instead of the five. They would be eligible for $7,560. But if you want to see the `full monty'—for want of a better expression—that is, the scheme in its fullness, look at the situation for a couple wishing to continue to work for the full five years. When they are subsequently granted an age pension, they would be eligible for $35,450 tax free.Appropriately, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) has just entered the room; I compliment him on this legislation. I think this is an even better bonus scheme than the one that was proposed under Fightback which, from memory, offered about 8⅔ per cent. So this is a more generous scheme than that one.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—The son of Fightback.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes. But not everything in Fightback was bad. We acknowledge that you won that election but, nevertheless, there were some very good things in that and they have been transformed into the role of the current government. This scheme cuts in at the retiring age—65 for males and 61 for females—and it also has a registration test to prevent abuse. I think they are all commendable aspects of it.In the fullness of this particular scheme, we need to recognise that this is one of many packages that the coalition has put in place to add dignity and security to aged people, not the least amongst which was the increase to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings of the aged pension just recently and, subsequently, the veterans' affairs widows pension.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—We've been doing that for years.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It is interesting that you should say that. I got a chart out and had a look at that. It has not always been 25 per cent. There have been times where governments have been a bit tardy on that over the years. I think this was quite a substantial increase. We should bear in mind that, as a result of the government being able to keep inflation and interest rates at a low level, the burden on people who depend largely on the pension for income are not seeing that eroded by inflation, whereas the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings allows them to kick up a bit. If you looked at a ratio, you would find that they would be appreciably better off than they were in the last days of the previous government.We have also put the health insurance rebate in place. I find that a lot of aged people are very frightened about health care in their old age. Although I acknowledge that there is a lot more that can be done in that field, it is an attempt not only to give them the security of their own health insurance but also again not to be a burden on the taxpayer.The savings rebate scheme acknowledges those pensioners and part pensioners who have small investments. It allows them the dignity of earning a little more each year and acknowledges that they have been caring for themselves. We recognise farm families, in allowing farms to be passed from one generation to the next without penalty when that farm has a value, after farm debt, of $500,000 or less. If there are two families depending on that farm, it can be $1 million, or $1.5 million if three families are involved, which is again a very generous scheme.All in all, this is not just one measure in isolation but it is part of the fabric that the coalition has put in place to add security, dignity and reward for effort for our ageing Australians. I commend it to the chamber.17:18:002935Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I am obviously delighted to be able to speak and close the debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 . I am pleased because in a sense I was associated with the development of this policy initiative. It had been spoken of in Fightback, as the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) mentioned in his comments. I was pleased to be associated with the refinement and development of it at the last election.It is in that context that I thank the honourable members for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), Moreton (Mr Hardgrave), Herbert (Mr Lindsay), Parkes (Mr Cobb), Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) and Hinkler for their contributions. I note that other than the member for Jagajaga, they are all government members who spoke. It is fairly obvious why that would be so. It is because they recognise the positive win-win nature of this policy. I suspect the relative silence of opposition members on this matter is because they recognise that it is, as the member for Leichhardt said, a gold star policy and they are hoping that nobody will know that we got such an outstanding mark for the initiative.This legislation gives older Australians a choice—a choice to retire on or before the age of 61 for women or 65 for men, if they choose to, or to delay their retirement and to keep working and so build up their nest egg for retirement and ensure a better quality of living in their latter years. I think it complements the view that we have taken that ageism is not necessarily a good thing.I think that, as people are living longer, this degree of flexibility that enables choice will help prolong many lives. It will provide a situation in which people who are active can feel positively useful, and at the end of the day they will perhaps be a little more independent. They may well become so much more independent, even though they were originally pension eligible, that they will find that their own savings have put them in an advantageous position to be able to better support themselves from the work that they have undertaken.In that context, I was a little disappointed by the grudging nature of the remarks from the member for Jagajaga in relation to this question. It is a very generous scheme, yet she questioned that. It is generous, in that you have a lump sum payment of $21,000 to an individual. For a couple, $35,000 is the equivalent amount that they can earn and hold and not be disadvantaged. These are generous amounts that would mean that a person with otherwise limited means would have a nest egg that would enhance their lifestyle in retirement. They could benefit enough to pay off a mortgage, take a well-earned holiday or obtain a new car. The scheme is far more generous than any that was put in place by our predecessors.The member for Jagajaga questioned also, I gather, the figures on the take-up of this measure. I think she suggested they might be rubbery. We have said always that something of the order of 35,000 people will participate in the first three years. We are advised that those figures are reliable. Of these, 25,000 will have been influenced by the pension bonus scheme to defer retirement. The other 10,000, quite possibly, would have deferred in any event.This is not a savings measure. The scheme has been constructed so that, over the medium term, it will be revenue neutral. But it was always one which in its first years would produce some savings to the budget. It is not hard to understand why. The reason is that people are postponing taking a pension, so there are fewer pensions that have to be paid. At the end of the day, people will get a bonus as a result of having postponed it. That will involve an additional or supplementary payment. In the longer term, when those bonuses are paid, of course there will be an increased budget contribution. Over the medium term, the measure is one that has to be seen as being revenue neutral. But there are initial savings, given the way in which this operates.There were refinements in the calculation of the short-term savings as a result of our listening to the community and reducing the number of hours a person has to work from 25 to 20 in order to qualify. Regardless of that, I am told that the financial impact as set out in the bill is accurate.The member for Jagajaga bemoaned also the fact that people may work for five years after retirement age and then be too well off to qualify for the pension. Wouldn't that be dreadful, that somebody has earned extra money and then is too well off? We do not regard that as a weakness: we regard it as a strength. I think it is only the Labor Party who often wants to project a view that some people are too prosperous, although I notice that that has been changing to some extent. Perhaps I had better not go too far down that route. When one looks at former leaders in this place, one would not want to bemoan prosperity, I suspect, if one were in the Labor Party today. But perhaps the member for Jagajaga, new to this place, has not realised what has gone on in the past. For a person to miss out on any age pension, to be totally excluded, however, they must have a retirement income of at least $820 per fortnight or assets of over $245,750, plus their house.If we have encouraged a person to work and accumulate this retirement income or these assets, then I think we have achieved well. We have ensured that this person retires with the resources for a comfortable lifestyle, but if they do not have this income or assets the bonus will be payable. So people deferring retirement are completely protected. Either they build up a substantial nest egg of their own, or we make a contribution to their nest egg. In that sense, we see this as a win-win policy and I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—If no member wishes to consider this bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 5.27 p.m.