1998-05-133817REPS311101998-05-13Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills3111r5243111Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.311109:31:003111Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Mr Speaker, the data-matching program is an important aspect of the continued efforts of this government to ensure the integrity of Australia's social welfare system. Over the past seven years, the data-matching program has been conducted under the Privacy Commissioner's scrutiny with careful regard for individual privacy and is an important control on personal financial assistance schemes, helping to keep them free of abuse and fraud. It has been proven over the past two years that it can achieve substantial savings in public expenditure. The data-matching program is also valuable in encouraging voluntary compliance with the rules in place to ensure payments are targeted to those in need. It reminds the community that it is not a case of if fraud will be detected, but when. It has now become an important feature of the review mechanisms that are helping to build the integrity of the system and the confidence of the public that the system is, in fact, secure from fraud.There are ongoing review and reporting arrangements in place to allow the parliament to maintain its scrutiny of the program. The present government, when in opposition, argued successfully for continuation of this scrutiny. The Privacy Commissioner continues to play an important role in ensuring that the government agencies participating in the data-matching program abide by the strict conditions already set down in the legislation to protect the privacy of individuals. In addition to the Privacy Commissioner being able to seek information and scrutinise the activities of the agencies involved in the data-matching program, there is a requirement that those agencies report annually to the Privacy Commissioner. The act also requires that these reports are laid before the parliament. There is also a triennial report to the parliament covering the three previous financial years. The first triennial report is due in the second half of this year.In 1996 the Australian National Audit Office conducted a follow-up of its 1993 audit of data-matching within the Department of Social Security. This review was in keeping with this government's election commitment to review the data-matching program. It can be noted that the ANAO's audit opinion given in its 1996 report was as follows:Overall the Department has made substantial achievements through implementing legislative changes, improved reporting procedures, savings collection, better targeting and project evaluation processes. These changes have resulted in both substantial increases in savings generated by the Program and in efficiency improvements.When the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 was first enacted, it incorporated a sunset clause to take effect in January 1993. That sunset clause has, however, been extended by the parliament on three separate occasions. The latest occasion was in 1995 when the sunset clause was extended until 23 January 1999. In part, the sunset clause was kept in place because of concerns in the parliament that the data-matching program would not achieve the expected savings and in part as an attempt to allow the parliament to maintain scrutiny of the program.The data-matching program has now proven that very substantial savings can be achieved, and the parliament has been regularly informed of the operation of the program in addition to its deliberations of the bills previously introduced to deal with the sunset clause. The program has become an important feature of the overall social welfare system and one that needs to be given a permanent place in the continuing efforts to maintain and improve that system. In the event that the sunset clause is allowed to come into effect, the loss of savings that could be achieved would be in the order of $560 million over the four years from 1998-99. Accordingly, this bill seeks to remove the sunset clause. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills3112r4603112Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.09:36:003112Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The proposal contained in the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 represents a major change to that service. It signals the government's intention to partially privatise the CRS by 1999. In Labor's view, the CRS has, in fact, been a successful organisation and there is no rationale for partial privatisation. We are very concerned that people with disabilities, who have already been hard hit by this government's budget cuts, will be further disadvantaged by this bill.At present, the CRS operates as a division of the Department of Health and Family Services. It has 160 service outlets throughout Australia and some 1,400 staff and helps rehabilitate around 42,000 people each year so that they can get back to work. Its budget for this financial year is $108 million, down from $125 million in 1995-96. This government has cut a total of $36 million from the forward estimates for the CRS in the last two budgets up until the budget yesterday.According to the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) in his second reading speech on the bill, it represents the first stage in a two-stage process which will eventually lead to the introduction of competition in Commonwealth funded rehabilitation services. The purpose of the bill before us today is to separate the CRS from the department and establish it as a Commonwealth owned company which will have a different organisational structure more in line with its potential competitors, according to government claims. The government's stated rationale for the proposed changes is that introducing competition will enhance efficiency and client choice. In fact, the model is the same as that for Employment National—and we now know what a debacle that has been for unemployed people.We have very grave concerns about this bill. The bill proposes to repeal part III of the Disability Services Act. Part III contains the key provisions relating to the rehabilitation services provided by the Commonwealth. Among other things, these provisions deal with such essential matters as who may be entitled to rehabilitation assistance, the types of assistance which may be provided, when the provision of a rehabilitation program to a person is to cease, whether the person receiving the assistance may also be entitled to a training allowance and the right of a person who is the subject of a decision under the act to appeal that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These are essential matters which, as I said, are currently in part III of the Disability Services Act and which will be repealed by the bill before us today.Some of the provisions, particularly those dealing with decisions to grant or not to grant assistance and the kind of assistance to be provided, are discretionary. This is appropriate, given that the scheme needs flexibility to ensure that different groups of people with diverse needs—people with different types of disabilities—can be catered for appropriately. On the other hand, the provisions in part III provide considerable guidance with respect to both the kinds of people who should be assisted and the kinds of assistance they should be given.The discretions conferred by those provisions must, of course, be exercised in accordance with administrative law principles and not at the whim of the secretary's delegates. Hence, the current scheme provides a balance between flexibility and consistency in the treatment of people with disabilities. I understand that, under the proposal before us, a number of these matters would be dealt with in the terms of the contracts which will be formed between the Commonwealth and the corporatised CRS and eventually with other service providers.The guidance currently provided by part III will, I understand, be replaced by the terms of contracts formed between the government and commercial enterprises. These terms will presumably be reached after negotiation between the parties and will strike a compromise between the commercial and other interests of the provider and what should be the interests of the government in ensuring an acceptable level of service to the rehabilitation recipient at the best possible price. In the absence of a legislative framework, this is likely to reduce consistency with respect to the provision of rehabilitation services and there is a real risk that the interests of the ultimate recipient of these services—that is, the disabled person—will be subsumed by commercial considerations.A further significant concern is that there are other provisions in part III which could not be replaced by terms in a contract with a commercial provider and which would simply disappear under this proposal. For example, service recipients will lose the right to appeal decisions under the scheme to the AAT. This represents a substantial reduction in the rights of individual recipients. It also means that the role of the AAT in helping to ensure consistency of decision making with regard to the scheme will be lost.Another aspect of the present scheme, provided for in part III, that may disappear is the entitlement of some rehabilitation service recipients to a training allowance. I would appreciate a response on this from the minister when he is able. Does the government intend to continue paying this training allowance and, if so, what arrangements will replace the current provisions contained in part III? If the allowance does disappear, it will represent a significant reduction in the benefits presently provided under the scheme. Abolishing the allowance would also remove a valuable incentive for job seekers who are currently receiving assistance under the scheme.One of the programs presently available to people with disabilities is a work training scheme under which people are placed in a place of employment for a period, usually around 12 weeks. They are not paid wages, but continue to receive the pension plus an additional amount by way of the training allowance. Without the training allowance they would receive nothing other than the pension. They would effectively be working for nothing.This leads me to a further problem with the proposal which was brought to our attention by a number of community organisations. One of their key roles is to place people in employment under the work training scheme. Initially, the scheme faced a serious problem in that employers involved were reluctant to provide workers compensation cover for people who had been placed with them under this scheme. Some state laws prevent a third party, such as the CRS, from providing such insurance coverage under the state schemes. This problem was eventually overcome by an arrangement whereby the person who is employed under the scheme is deemed to be an employee of the Commonwealth and therefore covered by Comcare legislation. I would like to know how the government intends to deal with this issue once the CRS ceases to be a division of the department.The community organisations we have spoken to believe that, if this problem is not overcome and if the training allowance ceases to be paid, it could well mean the end of the work training program. Apart from the particular issues arising from the removal of part III of the Disability Services Act, Labor has a number of more general concerns about the whole two-stage proposal.On the face of it this does appear to be a partial privatisation of the rehabilitation scheme. As the government is not providing any additional funding to the CRS, we will probably end up with a situation where, instead of 160 CRS services providing rehabilitation around the country, we will have 140 CRS services and perhaps 20 services provided by other organisations. How this would actually increase competition is totally unclear to us.The department has advised that opening up the provision of these services to competition will not necessarily result in a reduction of services provided by the CRS. This we understand is because the CRS will expand its money-making operations. At present Part III of the Disability Services Act allows the CRS to charge the rehabilitation recipient for its services where that person is not a pensioner or beneficiary, or where the person receives compensation in respect of the disability for which they are receiving rehabilitation assistance.The idea appears to be that the CRS will expand its services to such paying recipients to maintain its current level of revenue. The department has also indicated that the CRS may move into other money-making enterprises, for instance under the new labour market arrangements. I would like to know—and I am sure many people with disabilities around the country would like to know—if this means that the CRS can charge employers between $300 and $2,000 for their services like Employment National is already doing—a horrifying thought for anyone with a disability.The CRS will face an increasing need to generate money as more and more work is given to other service providers. This may have the effect of shifting the focus of the organisation from what is rightly its primary function—the provision of free rehabilitation services to low income applicants. It may also mean that the CRS will expand the categories of people to whom it will offer assistance and the kinds of assistance it will offer if that is likely to be more lucrative.We are particularly concerned about the possible impact of this proposal upon people in regional and remote areas. Over 80 of the 160 service outlets are in rural and remote areas of Australia including Tennant Creek, Broome and Mount Isa, and the more regional cities of Shepparton, Dubbo and Orange. The department has indicated to us that they are hopeful that the proposal will actually improve accessibility in remote areas, because alternative providers will be able to offer the services in such areas. This will of course depend on the commercial viability of provid ing such services to low income people in these very remote areas.Our concern is that, as commercial considerations come to the forefront, it may be natural for the CRS to consider rationalising—that means, of course, closing or cutting back—its more expensive and less lucrative operations, which are much more likely to be in remote or regional centres. We would like a guarantee from the government—a guarantee to the House—that this proposal will not disadvantage people in remote and regional parts of Australia and that there will not be a reduction in services to these people.Labor is also concerned about the quality of assistance that might be provided by organisations other than the CRS. The CRS does have a substantial pool of highly qualified workers, many with medical and professional health qualifications. Over the years they have developed a great deal of skill and knowledge in providing rehabilitation services for those in their target group. It would be unacceptable if the present standards of the CRS were not met by alternative service providers.We are also very concerned about the accountability of the new corporatised CRS and alternative providers. As I have already said, the decisions of a provider regarding whether to grant assistance and the kind of assistance to be given will no longer be subject to the scrutiny of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. What I am concerned with here is the accountability of the providers to the government.The minister has indicated that the CRS will be designated as a government business enterprise. I understand this means that it may be subject to the accountability mechanisms provided for in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act and the governance arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises, issued by the Department of Finance last year. But neither the minister's second reading speech nor the explanatory memorandum provide any details regarding the exact nature of any special accountability measures which may be necessary or appropriate in respect of this scheme, which does provide such essential services to people with disabilities. The people who stand to be hurt most by this bill are people with disabilities on a pension who need some help with getting back to work. As if the $300 million budget cuts that people with disabilities have already suffered under this government are not enough, the government is now partially privatising a service which has played a central role in providing job opportunities to this group of people.It is clear, both from the budget last night and from this government's last two budgets, that there is no commitment from this government to helping people with disabilities get back into the work force. Just like their attitude to women, it seems that they would rather people with disabilities just stayed at home, and that is what is happening under this government. That is what the figures show.The unemployment rate for people with a disability is now above 20 per cent. The average time spent on the disability support pension is now more than seven years. Unmet need for job help is high amongst this group. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that there were no employment services for 30,000 people with disabilities who need and want help. These people are not on high incomes. They cannot afford to pay for job help.From 1 May the brave new world of employment assistance began. We are very concerned about how people with disabilities will fare. It seems that they will be on their own. Centrelink officers will decide whether or not they receive mainstream help through the FLEX system, or whether specialist help will be provided through disability services. Just what incentives are there for employers is not clear. We do know that they will now have to wait two months before they have the funding to offer employer incentives. This particular government bungle means that people with disabilities will now receive fewer services than other people if they are looking for a job over the next two months.The Labor opposition feels very strongly about the rights of people with disabilities to work where they are able to earn a decent wage. We did fight for this principle in government, and there were some very significant achievements. We are not going to stand by while the Howard government takes the Disability Services Act apart. We will not be silent while this government puts the barriers up again, one by one, making it harder and harder for people with disabilities to participate in what for other people are the ordinary things of life: having decent accommodation, going to work and participating in the community.For all of these reasons, Labor will be opposing this legislation in its entirety. We also intend to refer the bill to the Senate community affairs committee for further examination. There are so many unanswered questions and concerns that it does require more detailed examination. We have not been able to get sufficient answers to all of our questions before the bill coming into the House. To that end, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) cutting the forward estimates for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service by $36 million in the last two budgets;(2) cutting the forward estimates for income support and services for people with disabilities by over $300 million in the last two budgets;(3) failing to negotiate a multi-lateral and national disability agreement with the States and Territories since the previous agreement expired in June 1997;(4) failing to improve the employment prospects of people with a disability by abolishing the Disability Review Panels and by making people with disabilities wait an extra two months before they can get intensive help with finding a job;(5) planning to partially privatise the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, thereby jeopardising the 160 Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service outlets, many of which are located in rural and remote areas;(6) severely weakening the Disability Services Act by repealing Part III of that Act; (7) failing to maintain an appropriate regulatory and accountability environment for rehabilitation services funded by the Commonwealth;(8) removing the right of people using the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to seek review of decisions made under the Disability Services Act to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and(9) placing in doubt the entitlement of rehabilitation service recipients to the training allowance currently payable under the Disability Services Act".This second reading amendment brings forward our considerable concerns with this government's whole approach to the services for people with disabilities. What this second reading amendment makes clear is that we are very concerned not only about the significant changes proposed in this bill to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service but also that the government has cut the budget of the CRS by $36 million in its first two budgets. We have seen considerable cuts to income support and services to people with disabilities by this government by over $300 million.We have seen this government fail in its attempt to negotiate a multilateral agreement with the states on disability funding. The Commonwealth-state disability agreement is still languishing. This government is unable to get the states to agree to a new Commonwealth-state disability agreement. And it is no wonder that so many states are still finding it impossible to come to the table and sign the new agreement, because there is no new money on the table. We also see the government failing to improve the employment prospects of people with a disability because it has abolished the disability review panels, and it is now making people with disabilities wait an extra two months before they can get intensive help with finding a job. This plan to partially privatise the CRS is going to jeopardise Commonwealth rehabilitation services, particularly those in rural and remote areas. That will be of great concern to people living in those parts of Australia.The bill before us severely weakens the Disability Services Act because it repeals part III of the act. As a result of the bill before us, we are going to see the failure to maintain an appropriate regulatory and accountability environment for rehabilitation services funded by the Commonwealth. We are talking about people sometimes with significant disabilities who will no longer have the protection of part III of the Disability Services Act. They are not going to be able to seek review under that act to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As a result of the bill before us and the actions of this government, they are going to see a significant reduction in their rights. Finally, the point that we are making in this second reading amendment is that it will put in doubt the capacity of rehabilitation service recipients, people with disabilities, getting the training allowance that has enabled them to get some compensation, some additional training allowance, when they go out and seek employment.These are major changes that this government has made to people with disabilities. We are seeing significant cuts, significant reductions in their rights, and now we see a partial privatisation of an excellent service. It is a service that has been providing outstanding services to people with disabilities. It has been getting them back to work. But yet again this government is driven more by ideology than by a commitment to people with disabilities. Labor will be opposing the legislation. I commend the amendment to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—I second the amendment.21:58:003116Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am pleased to support the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 and to oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin). I have only 10 minutes to make a contribution in this debate, and that precludes my capacity to rebut all the misleading allegations and assertions made by the honourable member for Jagajaga. As usual, she was a picture of negativity and mentioned many things that simply were not true. This bill is not a partial privatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at all. This government is determined to continue to assist people with a disability into employment. It ought to be noted that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service under this government assists approxi mately 30,000 people with injury or disability to return to the work force and find and retain jobs.The member for Jagajaga also suggested that the government is seeking to place barriers in front of people who are wanting to return to the workplace and that we are making it harder and harder for people with a disability or injury to find jobs in the paid work force. Nothing could be further from the truth. The opposition does not have a monopoly on compassion or good intentions to assist people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in circumstances needing the assistance of rehabilitation services.This bill is all about improving services for disabled people and continues to provide Commonwealth assistance to people with an injury or disability who are seeking employment. Changes proposed for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will help people with disabilities achieve the best possible value from the resources which will be made available through this program.Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to hear that the reform strategy is two-staged. The aim is, firstly, to separate the purchaser and provider functions and establish the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service as a wholly owned Commonwealth company; and, secondly, to introduce competition. This is consistent with government policy on government businesses, and it introduces increased efficiency, contestability, competitive neutrality and client choice. I suggest that, were the opposition in power, they could well be introducing a bill very similar to the one currently before the chamber.What is wrong with competition? On 1 May, a brave new world of employment assistance came into being with Job Network. Job Network has the government sector, Employment National, competing with private sector providers—and, most importantly, the private sector providers will get paid only when they put people into real long-term jobs. This means that there will be opportunities for unemployed people to seek the provider of their choice and, most importantly, that employers will also be able to choose the organisation which is most likely to be able to provide the right sorts of employees for their businesses.The principles established in Job Network will be followed with respect to this reform of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Also, it should be noted that clients will actually have a choice of service provider. When one listens to the honourable member for Jagajaga, one could be led to believe that she thinks it inappropriate that people who need the assistance of rehabilitation services should not have access to a range of competing bodies, all of whom are seeking to provide the best possible service to clients.Commonwealth funded rehabilitation will continue to be provided free of charge within the constraints of a capped budget allocation. Moreover, the government will ensure that highly specialised client assistance continues to be available to people in rural and regional Australia as well as to indigenous people and those whose mother tongue is not English.Government moneys provided for rehabilitation services will continue to service primarily those on Commonwealth income support—for example, the disability support pension, sickness allowance or newstart allowance—with the objective of returning to productive employment people whose ability to work has been adversely affected by accident, injury or a disabling condition.The bill before the chamber has two parts. On the one hand, we seek to set up the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service as a wholly owned Commonwealth company. There is no suggestion that this is a privatisation of the CRS. But it is being separated from the Department of Health and Family Services and it will operate, in a corporatised sense, as a wholly owned Commonwealth company. Further down the track, on the other hand, competition will be introduced, and that competition will assist private sector providers to compete with the CRS. We can all remember the bad old days of Telecom and the PMG, when there was no competition in relation to telecommunication services. But the introduction of Optus, Vodafone and other service providers has ensured that the now Telstra Corporation is one of the finest companies in the world and service to the community has dramatically increased.The old socialist monopoly idea that somehow a government department can provide better assistance and service to those in need than would occur in a competitive environment is not true. Clients will benefit. This is all about increasing—not decreasing—service to people who are in need of the assistance of Commonwealth rehabilitation services. It is important for the opposition to be fair, open, reasonable and honest. It is unacceptable that they should come into the chamber and suggest that the government is all about trying to keep at home people who have a disability.This government is determined to ensure that there are better and wider services available for people with a disability. When we have private sector providers competing with the public sector fully owned Commonwealth company, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, then clearly this additional choice will mean that more people with a disability will be placed in productive employment. They then will be able to return to the paid work force and earn incomes on behalf of themselves and their families.I am particularly pleased to be speaking on behalf of the government in relation to this very positive bill. It is another step towards improving services available to people with injuries or a disability. This legislation will be strongly supported by the public. I hope that the Senate will also support this legislation.It is very sad when the Labor Party seeks to play politics with the futures of people who have a disability or an injury and who need the assistance of rehabilitation services. In 1998, it is unacceptable that the Labor Party should maintain that people with a disability ought to be denied free choice, the right to choose a service provider. The Labor Party is wrong in trying to turn the clock back to the bad old times when we had monopoly government departments providing or seeking to provide services to people, and people had no choice other than to use them. They could not do anything but utilise that service, because there was no other avenue available for them through which they could receive the assistance to which they were entitled.On the day following the delivery of a budget which saw a surplus for the first time in eight years—in fact, a surplus of $2.7 billion—and a budget which represents sound economic management and which builds on the difficult decisions we were forced to make following our inheritance of a $10.3 billion budget deficit from the former Labor government, I am particularly pleased to be able to support this bill which provides for reform of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service in a two-stage way.Just to sum up, this bill will, firstly, separate the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service from the Department of Health and Family Services and restructure it as a wholly Commonwealth owned company—not as a part-privatised company, as the honourable member for Jagajaga would have us believe. In addition, further down the track competition will be introduced along the lines of Job Network—people who are clients now of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will be able either to choose to continue to use that service as a corporatised Commonwealth owned company or, alternatively, if they believe that private sector providers will give them a greater opportunity to return to the paid work force to use a private sector provider.This is about more service to people with a disability and injury. It will build on the fact that we currently provide opportunities for 30,000 people with injury or disability to return to the work force and find and retain jobs through the CRS. This is all about more service, not less service—it is about time the Labor Party was honest. I am pleased to commend this bill to the chamber.10:09:003118Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—It is not a case of being honest; it is a case of having the right to stand up here and disagree when we see something that we think is wrong. We actually have the right to disagree and we will disagree with the government stand in relation to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 as we have done with a large number of reforms, as they call them, in the area of social services and public policy generally under this government. This is without any doubt in our view the first stage of the eventual privatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which is now a free and public service which started after the Second World War to help people with a disability or injury to get or keep employment. A key objective of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is to minimise the personal, social and financial costs of disability by the provision of rehabilitation services. To be eligible for assistance from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, clients need to be permanent residents of Australia, to be aged between 14 and 65 years, to have a disability that impairs their ability to gain or keep a job and to live independently, and to be able to show that by being involved with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service programs they are likely to make a substantial gain towards being employed and being able to live independently.The type of support provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is tailored to each individual and may include services such as work experience—I have had the privilege of having people from the CRS on work experience through my office over the years and I look forward to continuing to do so—on-the-job training, counselling, suggestions as to how to handle their disability, help with job applications, help with contacting community support organisations and other support and advice.Referrals to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service may come from the individuals themselves or from medical practitioners, insurance providers and other government departments and agencies. The significance and scope of the operation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is indicated by the size of its budget and the number of citizens who benefit from the services it provides. Each year the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service assists approximately 30,000 people with injury and disabilities to return to the work force and find and retain jobs.The Commonwealth currently provides rehabilitation services free of charge to eligible people through a nationwide network of 170 service outlets operated by the Common wealth Rehabilitation Service. In the 1997-98 budget, in excess of $113 million was apportioned to the organisation. The government now proposes, I believe, to eventually privatise the service. The first stage of this privatisation involves setting up the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service as a Commonwealth owned company with all of its shares owned by the Commonwealth under the Corporations Law before 30 June 1998. The final stage will be full competition in the market for rehab services along the lines of what the government has done in the employment services market. The previous speaker opposite, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), has already indicated their glee at this. All I can say is that, if the chaos, confusion and lack of confidence currently being exhibited in the community towards that `brave new world'—what a chilling title to give it—in relation to the employment services market is also exhibited amongst people with disability or injury, I really do not know what sort of conscience this government actually has.This bill guts the Disability Services Act 1986—an act which Labor put in place to underpin disability reform in Australia. By removing all the sections that relate to rehab from the act the government has ensured that rehab services will no longer be delivered within the guidelines of the Disability Services Act.I believe that there are a number of issues arising from this bill that require further examination. These include the implications of this bill for the quality, affordability and accessibility of rehab services, the effect on the Commonwealth budget of a partially and fully privatised Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, the effect on staffing levels within the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service as well as the entitlements of Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service staff in the new privatised Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service—again I make a reference to the debacle that occurred in the employment services reform—and the interaction of Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service services with the new labour market arrangements to take effect from 1 May. To date the government has shown little interest in answering these concerns. I trust that when this bill makes its way to the other place these issues will be examined in greater detail than time enables today.I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) and I would like to take this opportunity to restate the Labor Party's absolute opposition to the government's plans in this area. The government has again demonstrated its meanspiritedness in the area of disability services. Its appalling record speaks for itself. Since coming to power in March of 1996 this oppressive conservative government, led by the worst Prime Minister since Billy McMahon, has cut the budget for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service by $36 million over the last two budgets—and if that is not an indication of its intention, what is?—and cut the budget income support and services for people with disabilities by over $300 million over the last two budgets.However, the government's poor record on disability services extends beyond harsh budget cuts. This government has also failed to negotiate new disability agreements with the states and territories—the previous agreements expired in June 1997, 10 months ago—and failed to improve the employment prospects of people with a disability by abolishing the disability review panels.The government has failed to address the concerns of Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service staff and clients in rural and remote areas that service levels will in fact be maintained. It is very easy to envisage a partially privatised Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service determining that it is no longer economic to provide services to those outside the major cities and regional areas. We have yet to see any guarantee from this government about the future of the 160 Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service outlets, particularly those located in rural and remote areas. People using services provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service have every right to demand an unequivocal commitment, a core promise, from the Prime Minister that their services will not be cut back. PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Their core promises are worthless. 5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—The member for Jagajaga interjects. She is right—would a core promise in fact be worth much? In concluding, I would like to again put on record our concern at the government's decision to repeal part 3 of the Disability Services Act. Putting key decisions regarding the provision of rehab services into the hands of a corporatised Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and other service providers without maintaining the current legislative scheme for regulating those decisions is a very dangerous practice. It is not something that the Labor opposition or I support.(Quorum formed) Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin's amendment) stand part of the question.10:15:00The 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.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. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.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. McLeay, L. B.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G.* Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Cadman, A. G. Evans, G. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Wooldridge, M. R. L. McMullan, R. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question now is that the bill be read a second time.10:27:003121Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—What this government is about in this Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 is replacing barriers to people with disabilities getting back into the work force that we as a government fought very hard to tear down. Once again, what we are seeing is that people with disabilities will find it harder and harder to participate in the work force and to earn a decent wage to keep them and their families at a good standard of living.In my electorate, we have seen the closure last December of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service office at Charlestown. That office was established by us in government to bring disability service assistance closer to the people who needed it, and also to be able to establish a closer relationship between prospective employers, the work of the office, officers of the CRS and people who use the services of that office. At its peak the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service office in Charlestown employed 16 people. At its closure last December there were 13 people left. Once a week a doctor, a social worker, a physiotherapist and a labour hirer were brought in to offer additional advice to clients—clients who had intellectual and psychiatric problems as well as physical disabilities. Those physical disabilities could include spinal, head and back injuries.The CRS was involved with assisting clients to undertake further studies to train them for new jobs or to undertake a work program with a local employer. What is happening now is that in the southern area of my electorate my constituents with disabilities are now being forced to travel a considerably longer distance all the way into Newcastle since the Charlestown office has been closed. That puts additional stress on them and it puts additional inconvenience on them.For example, if a constituent with a disability is to undergo a physical tolerance assessment at the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service—and they had already had to travel far enough to get to Charlestown—the result of the additional travel into Newcastle means that they will be well below their potential and not be representative of tasks they could undertake. In other words, it puts more stress on them, it makes it more difficult for them to show that level of achievement and performance, when they undergo examination that will lead to them being able to get a placement back in the work force.It is extremely important for the rehabilitation service to develop a close relationship with local employers so that they know what positions are available and can match people with disabilities with suitable positions. It is important for people with disabilities to be able to get work locally, to be able to link in with local employers, to become known to local employers or prospective local employers, because they are unable to travel greater distances.With the closure of the Charlestown Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service this relationship with local employers has been lost and the needs of clients are not able to be met. They are forced to travel further to positions that suit them, and in many cases the distance alone may rule them out. Whilst a closer employer may offer them a job, the CRS is not local and does not know this, so it cannot match up the employer and the client. There is not that level of contact or interchange between local employers near to where the constituent lives, and that causes the loss of opportunity for that person to be able to get back into the work force.I want to mention one example, the case of a paraplegic who is in the adjacent area of Warner's Bay, some 10 minutes from where the Charlestown office was. He was sent to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. They were able to assist him. They were able to set him up in his own home and he now lives independently. Subsequently his marriage broke up, but even then he was able to continue to care for his children alone. He could not have done that without the availability and the convenience of the CRS nearby and the assistance and support that they gave him. But, if commercial considerations of a corporatised CRS and other service providers come to the forefront, it is quite clear that clients like my constituent will not get that kind of care and they will not get the result that he was able to achieve.Another example at Charlestown was a coalminer. He had a serious back injury which did not allow him to go back into mining. There is a high injury rate, with quite serious injuries at times, in that industry. That former coalminer came to the CRS and was unable to do anything except weep. I have constituents from the mining industry cry in my office. You see young men in their 30s who have suffered severe injury, usually a back or upper body injury from a roof fall or contact with machinery or something that has happened in the very hostile environment in which they work. This man was unable to do anything except weep. Miners are highly specialised people. Their training and their skills are pretty much useless above ground. They are of great value below ground, but above ground it is very difficult for them to find employment.This gentleman had no other training and no other work experience. The CRS gave him the necessary training and he went on to work at Sizzlers and at Castle Personnel, and he is now the disability officer at a local Centrelink office. That is a total transition: from underground miner with very narrow skills, totally dispirited and totally without confidence to being back into the work force not only to gain new skills but to go on and be placed in a position where he is able to help other people in need.The aim of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service has always been to take someone who has had their life shattered by a disability and make them feel worth while in themselves and have them enabled to operate at a higher level in the community in a decent job. This legislation takes away from those people who need that special kind of help, who need that special relationship with nearby employers, the support, the advice and the assistance that they need to get them back into the work force. The CRS is not only about getting people back into the work force but also about the dignity of people who have suffered.As I said earlier, when we deal with people who have suffered physical injury, particularly in the work force—in other cases it may have been the result of a motor vehicle or other kind of accident not necessarily related to employment—the devastation that is wrought upon those people as a result of injury renders them incapable in many cases of getting back into the work force. It very much destroys their dignity and their self-confidence as well as placing enormous pressures upon them and their families. That is why I was so proud of the work that the CRS was doing in Charlestown and of the effort that came from those people. They put more into it than was required as officers of that service.The longer term aim of the CRS in this legislation will be for it to cease to be a monopoly provider. From 1999 it is proposed that there be an introduction of competition, intended to provide eligible clients with the choice of service provider and to promote greater efficiency. I cannot for the life of me see how this kind of service, which is a community support service and goes to the fundamental health and opportunity of family bread winners and individuals, can be sold on a market basis, on the basis that you will get the quality of service and the assistance you need out there in the open market.I cannot see that happening, and that is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why I am so strongly opposed to what the government is doing. People who have been injured and people in need, like those whom I have described, have been hit very hard by this government in its first two budgets, and the partial privatisation of the CRS is part of an ongoing attack against Australians who are least able to fend for themselves—the long-term unemployed, the aged, the sick and those with disabilities. They are the people who are least able to speak out for themselves, the people who are most in need and the people who have always been, in my view, deserving of that something extra in trying to get them back into the work force and back to a level of dignity and confidence in themselves.The key objective of the CRS has always been to minimise the personal, social and financial costs of disability by the provision of rehabilitation services. Quite obviously, the closure of the Charlestown CRS in my electorate means there are many people who are not going to get the level of service and support that they are entitled to as Australians, that they need and that their families need—because it is not just the individual, it is also the family of which an individual is a member that is affected by the availability of services or the unavailability of those services.The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service has tailored the support offered based on the needs of an individual. But if resources continue to be contracted and then commercialised, quite clearly the CRS is not going to be able to meet those needs. We saw what a mess was made with the changeover of the CES to Employment National. This morning I received a phone call at my office from a long-term unemployed person. His wife works to earn some income because he is unable to get a placement. He has been along this morning to Employment National to find out that, `Sorry, there is no help available for you to gain employment.' That is a mature man in his late 40s, a man who feels totally distraught and who is starting to wonder what use he is to anybody. Even the bit of support he had to help him try to find work has now been taken away from him. He is in this army of people I referred to earlier, which also includes those people with disabilities.A major concern with the bill has been the repealing of part III of the Disability Services Act that it seeks to achieve. Part III provides guidance as to both the kinds of people who should be assisted and the kinds of assistance that should be given. Part III therefore provides consistency as to what services are available to people who require the assistance of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, as well as a level or measure of flexibility.We understand that the guidance provided in Part III would be replaced by the terms of contract formed between the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and, eventually, other service providers. But these terms will have to be negotiated. They will have to strike a compromise between the commercial interests of the service provider and what is an acceptable level of service for a person receiving assistance.I instance to the House some examples of constituents who have benefited from the service provided by the CRS office in my electorate that has now been closed by this government. I do not believe that that kind of service, that level of care and that level of attention can be given by a commercial service. Like the employment services, their primary consideration is to make profit. They are not going to maximise profit by spending too much of their time attending to the special needs of somebody with a disability. With part III missing from the legislation it is entirely possible that consistency would be lost and the interests of the individual would be sacrificed for the sake of the commercial interests of the service provider, as I have referred to.What I said in the beginning was that this legislation is from a government that is about putting barriers back up again, barriers that we in government fought hard to tear down. Once again, people with disabilities will find it harder and harder to participate in the work force and to earn a decent wage to keep them and their families at a good standard of living. In my electorate of Shortland we have just seen a succession, since this government came to office, of cancellations and withdrawals of services to the aged, to the sick, to people with disabilities and to the long-term unemployed.I have seen the closure of the Belmont CES office, the closure of the Charlestown Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, the closure of the Belmont Medicare office and the closure of the weekly visiting service at Swansea by the Department of Social Security. That, combined with the changes being made with the abolition of the CES, all come together in an area of high need to mean worse and worse service. That is now being reflected daily in my electorate office by more and more complaints, more and more aggression, more and more mistakes, and longer and longer delays in getting services to people. On top of that the people providing those services, be they at Centrelink or any of the other agencies, are themselves under considerable stress and anxiety not knowing whether they have jobs and not knowing how long they are going to continue to have jobs. All of this is an assault upon people most in need in our society.I strongly subscribe to the view that the CRS, like other community support services, is a service that a federal government needs to provide in association with our state parliamentary colleagues. That service is a responsibility that we as a society have to accept and provide. What I am seeing in my electorate is a severe loss of equity, a degradation of fairness. We sought, as a government, to bring to those areas of greatest need—the areas of higher long-term unemployment—the services they needed to re-establish themselves, to regain confidence, to improve training and to help them get back into the work force. What we have seen, in just over two years of this government, is a degradation of those services—a withdrawal of those services—and life being made more and more difficult for people most in need. That is why I am strongly opposed to the changes being made by the government in this legislation. I fear for the people who are going to suffer as a result of this legislation. I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the concept that comes from this government that this kind of community service can be privatised.10:44:003124Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—Despite what we have heard, this bill is actually about facilitating the establishment of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, better known as CRS, as a separate Commonwealth organisation dedicated to providing improved vocational rehabilitation services to clients of the Commonwealth's rehabilitation program. While the new CRS company will be established administratively, the bill provides for transitional and consequential changes to effect the transfer of functions to the new company. Separating the CRS from the Public Service will allow for greater efficiency and enhanced capacity to focus on services to clients. This change will allow for the separation of the function of the purchaser of Commonwealth rehabilitation services, which will remain with the Department of Health and Family Services, from that of the provider, which will become the responsibility of the new CRS company.The member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) raised the issue of controls on the new CRS company. The new company will be subject to a range of ongoing controls by the government. It will be required to operate within the government business enterprise arrangements and this will require it to seek ministerial approval for its corporate plan and to report regularly on its performance. The company will also have to comply with its memoran dum of articles of association, which will remain in the control of the Commonwealth as shareholder. The company will operate under a legally binding service contract with the purchaser—the Department of Health and Family Services. This contract will ensure that the CRS company complies with the objectives and principles of the Disability Services Act.Community service obligations will be appropriately specified and funded under its contract with the department, including any necessary support for rural and remote areas. Once a new scheme is finalised, CRS will be subject to a new accreditation system which will monitor standards and new performance indicators which will be introduced for disability service providers.The member for Jagajaga suggested that this bill will change existing policy. Commonwealth funded rehabilitation policy will not be affected by this change. Services will continue to be provided free of charge to eligible clients. Moreover, the government will ensure that highly specialised client assistance continues to be available to clients in rural and regional Australia as well as to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and people of a non-English speaking background.The program will continue to provide vocational rehabilitation services free of charge to eligible clients, typically pensioners and beneficiaries, to equip people with a disability or injury to secure employment by providing a range of specialist pre-vocational interventions tailored to individual needs. There is no change in policy in relation to eligibility or services to clients.This reform also opens up the door to the introduction at a later stage of competition for the provision of Commonwealth rehabilitation services. The proposed introduction of competition will, for the first time, give clients a choice of service provider. Currently, clients have no choice under part III of the DSA and have to go to the CRS for free Commonwealth rehabilitation services. The government will be consulting with service providers and the community on the best way in which this can be achieved, and no decision on how competition will be introduced will be made before that consultation process is complete. The separation of the CRS and the subsequent introduction of competition provides the CRS with both flexibility and incentive to establish itself as a highly competitive and self-funding provider of world-class rehabilitation services.I would like to particularly respond to a number of issues which have been raised in this debate. The member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) gave some examples of sad stories of his constituents. I think all of us who represent our electorates have sad stories of constituents, and personally I have seen and cared for those with serious disabilities. The government is anxious to improve services and provide for greater flexibility.Mr Peter Morris interjecting—8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The member for Shortland would do well to listen to what I have to say because it has significance for his electorate. Staff previously located in Charlestown have been relocated to Newcastle and services to eligible clients in the Charlestown area have not been reduced. More flexible service delivery arrangements, including visiting services by CRS staff to clients' homes and local visiting rooms, are in place to ensure that the needs of the clients who are unable or who do not wish to be seen in Newcastle offices are met.Mr Peter Morris interjecting—8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The member for Shortland seeks to make political points, but services being provided for some of the most disadvantaged people in our community should not be subject to political point scoring. The government is quite determined to provide services, to not have people in a restricted nine-to-five situation going to one place if they can be visited in their homes. If we can be providing more flexible and better services, that is what this government is about. We will not have people frightened by inaccuracies and false claims.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have not misrepresented anybody; I am here to represent the truth for my constituents, and not her ruthless behaviour—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—It is my obligation to ensure that this legislation is presented accurately before the House today. The member for Jagajaga got a lot wrong: talking competition and privatisation for one thing, because this bill is not to do with privatisation or competition; this bill is only about administrative arrangements whereby the rehabilitation services are separated out from the Department of Health and Family Services. The changes enhance the ability of CRS to provide a better and more flexible service by replacing part III—it is only change in structure; not change to policy or program. Such things as the training allowance will continue, and the other requirements of part III will be implemented through the legal contract between the department and the new CRS company.References have been made to regional and rural Australia. The present services remain, but will also be able to be more responsive. The member for Jagajaga further claimed that there had been a reduction in the number and level of services. There have not. The number of clients for whom services have been provided are well documented and the successful outcomes expected this year are equivalent to the last financial year and more than those in the year 1995-96.The member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) expressed concern about staffing, entitlements and levels. Staff will be transferred under the Public Service Act and their entitlements will be protected. The quality of services and the needs of clients will entirely govern staff numbers. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3126Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Bills3126r414Billsr404Billsr415BillsBills3126Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.10:54:003126Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—For a variety of reasons we should not be debating these superannuation legislation bills now. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House condemns the Howard Government for introducing the Bill which is a clear breach of the Prime Minister's pre-1996 election promise that the Coalition would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth Government employees".These bills break yet another of the election promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—that he would not cut and destroy public servants' superannuation entitlements. Commonwealth public servants will be disadvantaged by this legislation, which the government claims will offer them choice of fund but which actually closes the natural industry fund, preventing it from becoming one of those choices. The general choice of fund legislation has not yet got through the parliament and the government is yet to bless us by announcing the new start date for choice of fund for the general community. Once again, the government's ideological slip is showing.The amendments that we will move are designed to keep the Prime Minister to his 28 February 1996 promise to all Commonwealth public servants not to `cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes'. We will do that by opposing the closure of the public sector superannuation scheme. We are also going to provide employees with a real choice of fund from 1 July 2000, including access to the PSS, which is the natural industry fund for Commonwealth public servants, and we will allow the other administrative changes to pass.The government claims that this package of bills extends its choice of fund policy to Commonwealth public servants, but it is bizarre for the government to claim it is offering public servants more choice when it is closing off one of the choice options for new public servants. Currently, most public servants are required to become members of the public sector superannuation scheme, the PSS, or are existing members of the now closed Commonwealth superannuation scheme, the CSS.The bills in this package contain the following features: the closure of the PSS to new members from 1 July this year, after which date new employees will have to choose a superannuation fund offered by their employer; it will allow current CSS and PSS members to opt out of that fund and choose an alternative fund offered by their employer from 1 July 2000; it allows CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust, the AGEST, or other funds to the CSS; it allows reversionary benefits to be paid to a CSS pensioner spouse or child from a post-retirement relationship with fewer restrictions than currently apply; it provides for modifications to redundancy entitlement arrangements for CSS members who cease employment as a result of a sale or outsourcing, to reflect the clean break approach as opposed to the phased approach; it provides new preservation arrangements from 1 July 1999 for the employer financed component of the CSS lump sum—these changes are being implemented to the PSS through an amendment of the PSS trust deed; it allows acceptance of late elections for preservation of membership rights; and it has a number of supplementary administrative arrangements.Offering choice to new and existing employees will force the Commonwealth to fully fund employee superannuation contributions as opposed to the largely notional contributions which currently occur. This is expected to bring forward expenditure that would have been otherwise deferred until the liability falls due, to the tune of $12 million for 1998-99, $40 million for the following year and $290 million for the year after that. The government notes that these costs are a bringing forward of future liabilities and do not represent any additional expense. The shift to accrual accounting, the government claims, will result in a zero budgetary impact.The changes to post-retirement reversionary benefit arrangements are estimated to increase outlays by $2.2 million per year due to the increased number of reversionary benefits expected to be paid. The Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 , one of this package, establishes a new Commonwealth superannuation board to administer the closed Commonwealth superannuation schemes and other schemes where determined. The board is proposed to comprise an equal number of member and employer representatives and an independent chairman, and will recover its administrative costs from the employing agencies.There are many reasons why we should not be considering or supporting these bills. The first is the Prime Minister's broken promise. We have come to expect some pretty colourful and spectacular backflips from the Prime Minister, who coined the terms `core' and `non-core' promise as a way of wriggling out of hand-on-the-heart commitments which he made to the Australian people both when Leader of the Opposition and in government. The words `core' and `non-core' have now become part of Australian political vernacular, which is a sad indictment of the man who gifted them to us.Even given our lowered expectations of prime ministerial integrity and honesty and the fact that we do not expect a lot from him, it still comes as a considerable surprise that he would allow this legislation to come forward, given that it represents an almighty breach of his pre-1996 election promise to Commonwealth public servants. On 29 February 1996, in response to an article in the Australian Financial Review about the coalition's views on public sector superannuation funds, the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to all Commonwealth public servants claiming that they had been `subjected to a lot of misinformation' about the coalition's position on public sector superannuation.What were those views that the Prime Minister claimed were wrong? The Australian Financial Review article of 28 February was headlined `Coalition vows super cuts' and suggested that the coalition would be slashing Commonwealth employer superannuation contributions to bring them into line with general industry payments. The article was based on comments made by the coalition's then spokesman on public administration, John Moore. A further Financial Review article a day later, on 29 February, reported Mr Moore as saying that it was a fair interpretation to assume that there would be cuts to Commonwealth employer contributions in the future.If I had been a public servant at the time and had read those articles and had heard those comments from the shadow minister, I would have been pretty concerned and fairly worried that my superannuation entitlements were going to be hacked into by a coalition government. Obviously fearing a backlash from public servants, the Prime Minister decided to take defensive action. He wrote an open letter to all Commonwealth public servants which was published in the form of full-page advertisements in the Canberra Times and other newspapers. The Prime Minister, honourable members may recall, was at that stage into hosing down and reassuring everybody and promising to do absolutely nothing in what turned out to be a successful bid to sneak and sleaze his way into government. The letter said:I give you my rock-solid guarantee that the Coalition will not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth Government employees. I emphasise the words `existing and prospective' because it is those words which highlight the Prime Minister's broken promise.Closing the PSS to prospective Commonwealth employees is a cut in entitlements and destroys their access to the public sector industry fund. Mr Howard attached to the letter a section of the coalition's public service superannuation policy, which stated:A Coalition Government will guarantee all accrued superannuation entitlements and retain separate arrangements for public sector superannuation.After reading that letter, if I had been a Commonwealth public servant, I would have thought that the coalition government would have continued the superannuation arrangements which I currently enjoyed. I would have also thought that new employees were going to be given the same entitlements which I had. After all, honest John Howard had given his rock-solid guarantee, and that is something which thousands of Australians thought meant something. As we have subsequently discovered so many times and in so many ways, the Prime Minister's promises are worth neither the paper they are written on nor the breath with which they are uttered.This bill is a flagrant and direct breach of Prime Minister Howard's promise, and the government and the Prime Minister ought to be condemned for introducing it. But it is far from the first time that the Prime Minister has broken a promise to public servants. Promises to public servants are in fact non-core promises. They are disposable promises. The House would be aware of the Prime Minister's firm commitment before the last election to cut the public sector by 2,500 by natural attrition with no forced redundancies. That firm commitment has become rather floppy and the 2,500 number awfully rubbery. In the 1997-98 budget papers, the Howard government conceded that 27,700 Public Service jobs would be cut by 30 June this year. Indeed, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for wage and salary earners for the December quarter 1997, the number of Australians in broader Commonwealth public sector employment decreased by 77,400 or 21.9 per cent from February 1996 to Novem ber 1997. In much the same way, the Prime Minister also gave a firm commitment to all Commonwealth public servants that a coalition government would be committed to a strong, independent and apolitical Public Service. But this government's attempts to rewrite the Public Service Act will undermine its professionalism and its independence. So Commonwealth public servants are becoming used to promises being given by this Prime Minister which he is happy to turn around and break.Secondly, Commonwealth public servants, both new and existing, are going to be substantially disadvantaged by this legislation. Let me go through some 11 ways in which this is to occur.MG4LEEMr Lee—How many?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Eleven. First, the closure of the PSS to new employees. Current CSS and PSS members will lose their present right of re-entry to these funds from 1 July this year unless they have previously preserved contributions. Secondly, employees will be offered a number of options by the employing agency for the payment of their employer contribution but, unlike other employers, the Commonwealth will not be required to provide the industry scheme as one of the options. This puts Commonwealth employees in a position of less choice than other employees.Thirdly, the government says it will guarantee only an employer contribution of superannuation guarantee—the community legal minimum. On 1 July this year, the superannuation guarantee minimum becomes seven per cent, moving to nine per cent by 1 July 2002. The current employer notional contributions are 13.1 per cent for PSS members and 21.9 per cent for CSS members. Three per cent of this is the productivity amount which was provided to public servants in lieu of a pay rise some years ago. The government now says it will fund departments and agencies to the same level for CSS and PSS members, but it has refused to state that it will guarantee individual staff the level of entitlement that they currently enjoy under the legislation. So, in effect, new staff lose the certainty of the amount of the employer payment. A new employee has to bargain with the employing agency to get any superannuation contributions above the superannuation guarantee level.Fourthly, the closure of the PSS will be a major financial loss to new starters as currently PSS members can obtain an employer benefit above 13 per cent if they pay higher personal contributions. I understand that over 80 per cent of PSS members in fact contribute above the minimum level, so those new starters will lose out financially immediately the PSS closes.Fifthly, it will be possible for agencies to pay the superannuation guarantee and then retain some of the 13.1 per cent paid to the agency. There is nothing to prevent an agency paying some or even all the remainder as a `pay rise' as part of pay bargaining.Sixthly, we will also see administration costs being transferred from the employer to the employee. CSS and PSS are administered by ComSuper, which is paid for by the employer. New starters and staff who elect to move to a choice scheme will have to pay the administration costs. It is also likely that the employing agency will now deduct the in-agency administration costs from the 13.1 per cent for each new staff member.Seventhly, staff will also lose the excellent death and disability insurance benefit provided under CSS-PSS and they will have to pay the additional costs of purchasing the death and disability cover. Eighthly, the new arrangements mean that the employer is transferring all liability for final provision of a benefit to employees because of the difference between defined benefit and accumulation schemes. Ninthly, the outcomes for a pension retirement benefit as opposed to a lump sum will be worse. It is difficult to calculate, but the cost difference between purchase of a non-indexed pension and an indexed pension provides some guide, and that is in the region of $100,000.Tenthly, there is a factor applied to the calculation of the non-contributory period effectively to exclude it for choice purposes. That means that when two people with identical contributions, identical length of service, et cetera leave the scheme, one through choice but the other through resignation, the person who resigns will get a bigger employer financed benefit than the one who leaves under the choice of fund arrangements. Eleventhly, people who choose to leave the CSS after minimum retiring age will also get a lesser benefit if they opt for a postponed pension than a person in similar circumstances who did not choose to go to another scheme. So on all those counts Commonwealth public servants will be disadvantaged by this legislation.The third reason we do not think this bill should be here is that the general choice of fund legislation has not been passed; it is yet to go before the Senate. If the government had any sense of decency towards Commonwealth public servants, any sense of responsibility towards parliamentary processes, it would withdraw these bills at least until the general choice of funds legislation is debated in the Senate. It borders on contempt of the parliament and is certainly contemptuous of these public servants to debate these bills at this time because, although we have a start date here, we have no start date for choice of funds generally. The government has not done us the courtesy of revealing that.This reveals the government's true agenda in introducing these bills. It is not about offering choice of funds to public servants at all; it is all about closing off the public sector superannuation scheme for ideological reasons. The government is trying to market this package of bills as providing choice of fund to public sector employees in the same way that it is giving choice of fund to the general community, but the rest of the community does not know when it will get choice of fund because the government is now playing hide-and-seek with the start date.Choice of fund was supposed to start on 1 July this year for new employees and on 1 July 2000 for existing employees. But at about five minutes to midnight when we were debating the choice of superannuation fund legislation in this House at the end of the last sitting period just before Easter the government decided it was going to postpone the introduction of choice of fund. But, while the government says it is moving choice of fund into line between the public sector and the general community, it still requires choice of fund to take place for new public servants from 1 July this year—1998. The House should not debate these bills until the general choice of fund legislation has been finalised. What is the point, where is the value, in having two separate choice of fund start-up dates?It has been confirmed by the office of the Minister for Finance and Administration that closure of the PSS is still being proceeded with. When a Labor staff member rang the minister's office to ask if the government would be announcing a delay in the start of choice of fund for public servants in the light of its announcement that choice of fund in general would be delayed, the answer that we got back from the minister's office was that the closure of the PSS from 1 July 1998 was still being proceeded with. That has really let the cat out of the bag. The real agenda has always been to close the PSS to aspiring public servants and get rid of as many existing public servants as it can.I now turn to where this advice came from. Where would such an idea come from? It has in fact come from the government's National Commission of Audit. Recommendation 5.6 of its politically motivated document says:The Government should initiate further work to examine the replacement of its current defined benefit superannuation schemes with accumulation schemes.Unfortunately for Commonwealth public servants, the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) has followed the National Commission of Audit's advice and has indeed decided to replace the current defined benefit scheme with accumulation schemes. But how accurate and appropriate was the National Commission of Audit's advice? First, the Commission of Audit has taken the view that defined benefit schemes are somehow inferior to accumulation schemes. That is a view which I am sure would alarm thousands of Australian workers. The Insurance and Superannuation Commission's December bulletin of 1997 states that defined benefit funds represent a significant part of the superannuation industry. As at June 1997, the proportion of superannuation fund assets managed by defined benefit funds was around 45 per cent and defined benefit funds represent about 30 per cent of all larger superannuation funds.Many large corporate superannuation funds—those which the National Commission of Audit and the government might regard as coming within the category of general community funds—offer terrific benefits to their members. They consider superannuation to be an important part of their employees' remuneration and offer generous superannuation fund arrangements, including above superannuation guarantee contribution levels. Why would the government believe that having the PSS available to Commonwealth public servants is out of step with wider community superannuation?Secondly, the National Commission of Audit was critical of the cost of the PSS and the CSS, but even the Commission of Audit noted that the Australian Government Actuary's projections of the unfunded liabilities for the Commonwealth superannuation schemes as a proportion of GDP show a steadily declining trend over the long term. This indicates that there is absolutely no reason—other than the ideological reason—to close the PSS. Its cost is actually declining.These bills prove that yet again we have a government which wants to treat public servants as second-class citizens; a group that the government, particularly the Prime Minister, is happy to make commitments and promises to and then break them.We will be moving amendments which keep the Prime Minister to his 28 February promise that he would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes. We will oppose the closure of the public sector superannuation scheme. We will provide employees with a true choice of funds from 1 July 2000 and we will allow the other administrative changes to pass, and thereby hold the Prime Minister to his promises as best we can.This legislation damages superannuation for Commonwealth public servants and that comes against a background of a government which has been prepared to do great damage to superannuation generally. We have had a history or pattern of this. When the government came into office, it promised that it was going to provide a government co-contribution to the superannuation guarantee contributions made by employers and the contributions to be made by employees. It said as an election promise that it would provide in full the funds earmarked in the 1995-96 budget to match compulsory employee contributions according to the proposed schedule.The proposed schedule would have brought the nine per cent superannuation for workers—which is set to come in at the year 2002—up to 15 per cent. With the government reneging on that, we are back to nine per cent. However, at only nine per cent of contributions it is estimated that average Australians will have their total retirement income reduced by $100,000 compared with the level they would have achieved at the 15 per cent contributions level. Unfortunately, nine per cent in contributions will not produce an adequate income for the majority of Australians to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in retirement.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Why didn't you do something about it?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—If the honourable member had been listening, I pointed out that the government had promised that it would proceed with the Labor government's co-contribution which would have lifted superannuation from nine per cent to 15 per cent.This is supported by research done by AMP published in Super Trends released in July of last year and by ASFA's own retirement income blueprint, which shows that nine per cent by way of superannuation guarantee contributions alone will result in a replacement rate of around 28 per cent after 30 years—that is 28 per cent of retirement income—which is far below the expectations of most Australian workers of a figure of around 70 per cent.This problem was also indicated in the budget papers released last night which show that gross private saving is declining. The government has been making much of the increase in gross public saving via the budget surplus, but it has very little to say about the decline which is occurring in gross private saving and the threat that that poses to national savings overall.That concern is accentuated by a recent study from Perpetual Funds Management which carry out a survey every year which they call Savings Pulse. Their conclusions after this survey is that Australians are a long way away from what is needed in terms of decent retirement incomes. They note that:More than half of those surveyed say that having adequate income in retirement is a major concern. This compares with 29% two years ago.In other words, just in the last two years there has been a big jump in the number of Australians concerned about whether they will have an adequate income in retirement: little wonder after the government abandoned government co-contributions on superannuation and the damage that that has done to superannuation; little wonder with the change made through the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge; little wonder with the changes that the government is proposing for opting out in superannuation; and little wonder after the government included superannuation in the assets test for over-55s so that, if you are out of work for a period, you have to hoe into your superannuation because you are no longer eligible for any other income support.With all these changes being made to superannuation and all the damage which this government has done to superannuation through those changes, it is scarcely surprising that more than half the people being surveyed by Perpetual Funds Management now say that having adequate income in retirement is a major concern for them.This bill is simply one more in the package where choice of fund legislation and the closure of the public sector superannuation scheme will lead to diminished funds in retirement. This is a government which says it is concerned about the future, about national savings, about retirement incomes, but all the steps it is taking will disadvantage that. We intend to keep the government honest on these matters. We intend to hold it to the election promise that the PSS would remain there for new entrants as well as existing employees. We intend to apply our choice of fund model, which is a superior choice of fund model to that which the government has come up with. It amounts to genuine choice of fund for employees, not forced choice of fund on employers, and we will be pursuing that in the Senate as well as here. We believe that on those counts we can come up with a much better superannuation arrangement, a much better retirement incomes arrangement than that which the government has been putting forward. Unfortunately, this is a government which is not committed to superannuation and which has been ringbarking the superannuation tree which Labor planted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?MG4LEEMr Lee—It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I second the amendment.11:24:003132Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise to support the superannuation legislation and to oppose the amendment. I have listened with interest but some dismay to the remarks of the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), who has indicated by his contribution over the last 20 minutes that he is very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This is a laudable bill. Its principal purpose is to provide a measure of choice to Commonwealth public servants in relation to their retirement income arrangements. Choice runs pretty strongly counter to the grain of the Australian Labor Party, which are a party characterised by their devotion to compulsion, particularly in relation to trade union matters but also more broadly.It is not really my purpose today to enter into a partisan wrangle over the minutia of the bill. This bill is an important step forward. It is a logical and consistent step in the long march back from the brink which this government, the sponsoring minister of this bill, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Fahey), and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) so spectacularly delivered last night. In delivering the first surplus on the recurrent budget—I understand the best once since the pre-Whitlam days—we have signalled what was described in the Daily Telegraph today by Malcolm Farr as a `generational change' in approach to fiscal responsibility. This bill is a next step, a next increment, in that process.The question which a bill about choice presupposes is why do we require choice. The answer to that is that we currently have superannuation arrangements for all Australians, not just Commonwealth public servants, which are based on compulsion. That is, we have a compulsory superannuation scheme introduced, to the credit of the former government. It was one of the few positive steps they took to restructure the Australian economy in a sustainable fashion. Recognising this huge deficit not only in the facts of the national savings but more deeply in the culture of this nation, somehow we had to get Australians to save more. We introduced compulsory arrangements, the superannuation guarantee, in 1992.That measure was flawed in an important respect. While it required all other Australians, employers and employees, to be in fully funded superannuation schemes, the Commonwealth and its public servants were exempted from that requirement. That exemption follows a long history of mismanagement and lack of foresight on the part of governments on both sides of this chamber. It is those long-term, non-partisan issues—many in this chamber have not been the author of these problems—that fall upon us to fix.I note the spirit of the Treasurer's budget speech last night into which the Minister for Finance and Administration made such an excellent contribution. He said, `This is not a time for complacency. It is not a time to rest on our laurels. It is a time to focus on the second great leg of reform, which is debt reduction.' The corollary of debt reduction is the whole question of the unfunded liability which we are generating for the retirement income of Australians for future generations. That is the issue I particularly want to focus on over the next 15 minutes or so.I want to take us back in this history of mismanagement, the lack of foresight, to a spectacular failure by us in this country to address a problem which is now global in proportions, to the National Health and Pension Insurance Act 1939. I suggest that, of all of the regrettable and mistaken passages of legislation in this chamber, the National Health and Pension Insurance Act is perhaps the most ignominious. It involved an annulment of three acts which had been passed the previous year: the National Health and Pension Insurance Act 1938, the National Health and Pension Insurance (Employers Contribution) Act 1938 and the National Health and Pension (Employees Contribution) Act 1938.At that time there was a recognition that we needed to begin to make provision for an ageing population; we needed to begin to make adequate provision for secure income in the retirement phase of the Australian people. So those three bills were enacted to make provision for contributions by both employers and employees to fund their own retirement. Had those three acts been implemented, our circumstances today in terms of retirement income both for Commonwealth public servants and for the population as a whole would be spectacularly different. What we now face is an unfunded liability for future young Australians to meet of over $70,000 million purely in the obligations of Commonwealth public servants and members of the defence forces.I note present at the table the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop). That is fortuitous because she, I know, is aware and concerned about the long-term impact of retirement arrangements we have made for the defence forces—and I refer specifically to the Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme. We are moving to the funding of those schemes. This government has taken those first steps towards a new culture of responsibility which says that each generation must pay its own way. But we should still pause and reflect on the fact that the combined obligations of those defence schemes to future Australians represents a figure of over $30 billion.Mr Deputy Speaker, I go to the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. When I asked whether there was a difference between the unfunded liability of the scheme and the accrued benefits of the scheme, I was instructed they represent exactly the same figure—that being $394 million. So here you see a much smaller figure—in the hundreds of millions rather than billions—but, nonetheless, the same culture which says that we in the Commonwealth somehow exist in a different state of grace to the rest of the Australian population, that we can incur obligations on future generations without making any provision for them, that we can grant rights without recognition that obligations attach to those rights. We seem to believe that somehow we are free from the laws of gravity and physics.What we are looking at is a combined unfunded liability to future generations of over $70,000 million. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that this is the one great remaining blot on the escutcheon of public finance in this country. We have work to do on the current account. We are taking bold steps forward in terms of the national debt. Also, the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra will be a dramatic step forward in reduction of the over $80 billion in Commonwealth debt; we will be able to wipe out, we hope, $31 billion of that debt in one hit.But this question of the unfunded liability for the cost of Commonwealth employees and Defence Force personnel which will have to be met by future generations is the one weeping sore, if you like, the one area, which has remained in the too hard basket for too long. This is the area to which I am now calling the government's attention, as we take this long-term view, as we head down what the Treasurer described as `the long march back from the brink'. This is the area upon which we now ought to direct our attention.There may be some who say, `Look, all governments operate this way, all schemes have been funded this way; what is your real problem?' In fact, Treasurer, that is quite incorrect. The great sparkling example of fiscal discipline, of what I would call intergenerational justice and compassion, is found not in my own state of New South Wales but in Queensland. I refer in particular to the Queensland State Public Sector Superannuation Fund, more commonly known as Q Super. From the time of the fund's establishment in early 1911, that fund was fully funded. As the scheme grew in the 1950s and 1960s, the benefits and entitlements grew and, likewise, the allocations from government grew so that at the present date the employer or Queensland government contribution is 14.55 per cent of salary and the employee contribution is five per cent.But critically, when the Queensland State Actuary reports to government, he or she reports on the contribution necessary to meet the future obligations of the fund. While the government is not bound to implement the recommendations of the actuary, it is a fact that on every occasion the actuary has recommended an increase in recurrent government allowance for the fund that recommendation has been fully implemented.So, to date, the Queensland government has been assured that all of its future obligations have been covered and that no future Queenslander—no unborn Queenslander—is going to be called upon, through his or her tax dollars, to meet the obligations of Queensland public servants who have long since given their service and retired. This, it seems to me, is an important principle for us to observe and reflect upon. What it says is that it is possible, if we take a long-term view—if we are prepared to forgo the pleasure and the kudos of existing expenditure in recognition of the needs of future generations—to establish and maintain a public sector superannuation scheme which fully meets its future obligations.Can I suggest that there are many other laudable aspects of the bills currently before the House. There are long overdue administrative arrangements which will make the scheme much more efficient in its operation. There are equity measures in relation to provision of benefits for widows, orphans, spouses and partners. All of those measures should be welcomed and applauded. They are informed, of course, by the recommendations of the Commission of Audit and by the excellent report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation under the direction of its chairman, Senator John Watson.But I just want to ask the parliament to pause on an occasion such as this and reflect on these long-term implications. These bills—in particular the Commonwealth Superannua tion Board Bill—now before the House take this first step towards a real change in culture. What it will involve is $12 million of additional expenditure in 1998-99, $40 million in 1999-2000 and $290 million in 2000-01. That expenditure goes to meet the future obligations of new members of the Commonwealth Public Service and of current members who elect, after July 2000, to take advantage of the choice of fund provisions which are contained in the bill. We anticipate that about 25 per cent of current fund members will take advantage of that opportunity. For that 25 per cent, this bill represents a real step forward in quality of life, in choice, in autonomy and in the capacity of individual Commonwealth public servants to take charge of their own financial affairs.But it nonetheless leaves untouched the 75 per cent of Commonwealth public servants who are likely to remain in the PSS. Those 75 per cent are dedicated public servants who are on the job today, perhaps even listening to these remarks. They are nonetheless accruing for future generations an obligation to meet their cost of retirement. Previous governments on both sides of the chamber have taken the view that this is simply par for the course. For example, the reports of the Commonwealth Actuary provide a stark contrast to those provided by, for example, the Queensland Actuary. The Commonwealth Actuary will say, `Yes, we do have a $42.6 thousand million unfunded exposure to future taxpayers, but it is not really any great cause for concern.'He argues two propositions in that regard. The first is what is described as `clawback'. Clawback represents the amount of money notionally which the Commonwealth would be required to spend to meet retirement income costs, most notably pension payments, if the superannuation exposures were not incurred. With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a case of smoke and mirrors. I suggest that to you because, as I have previously argued in this chamber, the current funding arrangements for pensions in this country are in a very serious state if we look at the long term. Life expectancy in this country has increased by about 25 years over the course of this century, birth rates over the past 100 years have declined by 100 per cent and we are now in a situation of natural decline in numbers—a reproduction rate of about 1.8 per Australian woman.The long-term implication of that on a pay-as-you-go pension scheme is that the arrangements are completely unsustainable. That means that the pay-as-you-go pension scheme simply takes from current taxpayers this week their tax contribution and immediately pays it out to Australian pensioners. We have given a legislative guarantee of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings, and I support and applaud that, but over the long run we have to encourage the shift towards self-funded retirement because the demographics are inexorably working in a completely unsustainable way. To maintain current levels of expenditure on current demographics at current levels of benefit without this cultural shift would involve marginal rates of income tax by the year 2020 of about 70 per cent for men and women on average weekly earnings. I think you will agree that that is a completely untenable position. So the Commonwealth Actuary's argument, on the basis of some notional concept of clawback, that we have nothing to worry about because we would have pension obligations in any case is weak.Secondly, the Commonwealth Actuary refers to a principle which involves looking at the unfunded liability as a proportion of gross domestic product. The argument here is that because it is not increasing rapidly as a proportion of gross domestic product it is not a problem. To build your financial strategy banking on simply the annual growth in the size of the GDP at the expense of every future Australian simply does not cut the ice. We have to take this shift, this generational change which was referred to today by Malcolm Farr, and apply it in the long run to the administration of Commonwealth superannuation arrangements.This bill takes those first steps. Because of choice, because of the introduction of private sector schemes, you will see for the first time the full funding of those 25 per cent of Commonwealth public servants who elect to take that choice and you will see full funding of all new entrants to the Commonwealth Public Service. We have to now address our attention to the weeping sore of the 75 per cent who remain completely unfunded. We have to look to the long run and recognise that social justice does not mean simply redistribution of resources within the current generation but encompasses our debt and our obligation to the opportunities of future generations of young Australians. I suggest two things as practical measures we ought to take. Firstly, on the anniversary of the passage of that ignominious piece of legislation, the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act, which ensured we made no provision for each generation of Australians, we ought to pause in this House for a moment's silence and reflect with shame on a tremendously short-sighted and regrettable piece of legislation passed in this chamber with a second reading speech that goes for no more than a column. If you go to the Parliamentary Library and ask for a copy of who voted on that division, they say that it is almost impossible to find from the records anyone who voted for the bill. I can quite understand that; it is a deeply regrettable piece of legislation, which we are all paying the costs for now. I suggest that as a chamber we ought to stop annually and mourn for a moment and give our apologies to future generations of young Australians.The second and more controversial proposal that I recommend is that we ought to begin making an annual budget allocation, even if small, as every single government department in the Queensland government does to meet the future costs of the retirement of current Commonwealth employees. Even if it will not meet the total costs of the catch-up we need to make up on that $70 billion debt, it will be an important signal to the Australian people that we are clawing back from the black hole, that we are clawing back on track and that we have future generations of Australians in mind when we make our deliberations in this place.11:44:003136Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I simply cannot allow the opportunity to pass for me to make a very brief comment in relation to the previous speaker, the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron). There are other things in this House that we would love to have apologies for but we are told that because they were not done in our time we are not responsible. So I find it a bit bizarre that the member for Parramatta is calling for apologies in relation to superannuation or retirement benefits legislation passed, I think he said, in the 1930s.The purpose of the bills that we are debating here today is to amend the various superannuation schemes applicable to Commonwealth employees to provide for choice of superannuation fund and to terminate eligibility to enter the current Commonwealth employment superannuation scheme. The bills also make a number of relatively minor amendments to the former Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Currently, most public servants are required to become members of the public sector superannuation scheme, referred to as the PSS, or are existing members of the now closed Commonwealth superannuation scheme, currently referred to as the CSS.These bills contain a number of key features which include: the closure of the PSS to new members from 1 July 1998, after which new employees will have to choose a superannuation fund offered by their employer; measures to allow current CSS and PSS members to opt out of their fund and choose an alternative fund offered by their employer; measures to allow CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust or other funds to the CSS; and modifications to redundancy entitlement arrangements for CSS members who cease employment as a result of a sale or outsourcing.My comments are going to be fairly brief today but very much to the point. I want to make some brief observations on this legislation and, in doing so, have the House take note of my constituency, where a very high number of Commonwealth public servants are still attempting to exist. However, it is very important to draw to the House's attention the fact—and this is the most important point that I want to make today—that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) wrote to all Commonwealth public servants before the March 1996 election, giving another of his now infamous, I am afraid, `rock-solid' guarantees that his government would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation arrangements for both new and future Commonwealth public servants. The letter said:I give you my rock-solid guarantee that the Coalition will not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth Government employees.I would like to emphasise the words `existing and prospective' as they highlight the Prime Minister's broken promise in this instance.The Prime Minister attached to the letter a section of the coalition's public service superannuation policy which stated:A Coalition Government willGuarantee all accrued superannuation entitlements and retain separate arrangements for public sector superannuation . . .After reading that letter many of my constituents who were and still are, hopefully, Commonwealth public servants would have thought that the coalition government would have continued the superannuation arrangements which they had been enjoying. On behalf of the public servants who happen to live in my electorate, I deplore the change in policy after such a rock-solid, core or non-core—or whatever we call it—guarantee. The coalition's pre-election policy statement included that commitment, and the closure of the PSS clearly and unequivocally breaches those promises. However, it would come as no surprise to the Commonwealth public servants here in the ACT that the Prime Minister had in fact broken another election promise. Who can forget the promise of the former Liberal member for Canberra that there would be only 2,500 job losses in the Public Service under a Liberal government?The 9,000 additional job losses announced last night in the budget now take the total overall throughout the country to something like 40,000 jobs lost in the public sector. Not all of them are in the ACT obviously but the smug Canberra bashers opposite would do well to remember that, while those job losses have been concentrated here in the ACT, public sector jobs have been lost Australia- wide, particularly in regional areas. They will have to explain to their constituents why so many jobs have been lost and why their level of service from the government has fallen so severely.This legislation provides yet another example of why the Australian people should be very sceptical about anything this government and, in particular, the Prime Minister promises them in the lead-up to the next election. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that from now on, as has in fact been the case for almost two years—because it took the government approximately six months to settle into the habit and for the remainder of the reign of this government so far we have had example after example—we just cannot afford to allow any belief or any conviction by us in any commitment given by this government.I will be pleased to support any amendments that are moved by this side of the House, as has been referred to by the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) in his speech on these bills earlier this morning. I will also add my full endorsement to the more technical comments that he made in relation to the bill, and there is no need for me to spend time on repeating them. My major objective in speaking to these bills this morning is to remind the House, the public and the people who serve in the public sector in this town of this absolutely blatant breach of commitment by the Prime Minister and by this government in relation to Commonwealth superannuation behaviour. I fully endorse the comments from this side and look forward to voting on the amendments put forward.11:51:003137Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—in reply—I would like to thank the various members who have contributed to the debate on this superannuation legislation. I have noted that opposition members have indicated a number of concerns about the bills under consideration, particularly in the context of the process for public sector employees in the future.Although the government will be moving some amendments to the bills during the consideration in detail stage, they will not change the main thrust of the bills. The government remains committed to the introduction of a new superannuation arrangement that will give workers control over their superannuation savings. This is to be achieved by a choice of fund arrangements, and the bills before the House provide for this choice. The package of bills which we are debating at this time will allow Commonwealth employees to participate in those new choice arrangements.The government had previously announced that the start date for the choice of fund arrangements for new employees was to be deferred. Taking that announcement into account, the government will also move amendments delaying the closure of the PSS and the repeal of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 when the bills are considered in the Senate. This deferral will ensure that the new superannuation arrangements to give Commonwealth employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings will coincide with the new start date for choice of fund. Other matters in the bills, such as the establishment of the new Commonwealth Superannuation Board, will not be affected by this change.The government does not agree with the opposition that the PSS should remain an option for new employees or that, at least in some cases, it should be the default fund for Commonwealth employees. To do so would not meet the government's objective to provide its employees with superannuation arrangements that are more portable and more flexible than the current arrangements are. Also, if the PSS were to remain open, we would need to consider changes to the scheme to ensure that the employer costs are not affected as a result of members moving in and out of the scheme.The changes to the preservation late election provisions ensure that the provisions will apply only to people who are genuinely unable to make an election within the prescribed time frame. They will also assist the CSS board by providing a framework within which it can consider applications. The bring forward of preservation date for cash lump sum benefits on redundancy is part of a package of changes that ensures equity be tween people who cease membership of the schemes as a result of outsourcing. Many scheme members will be better off as a result of those changes. The bring forward of preservation date ensures that the change in the CSS and PSS preservation rules links to the commencement date of the general preservation changes to apply to the wider community, as announced in the 1997-98 budget. It does not reduce members' benefits in any way. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question.11:58:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.B. Reid)84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andren, P. 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.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. 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. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. 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.46Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Cadman, A. G. Evans, G. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3139Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:04:003139Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 9:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 10 to 11), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Schedule 9 commence on 1 July 1998.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 9 to 14), omit subclauses (7) to (9). (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 4) to page 43 (table), omit Part 1.(4) Schedule 2, page 92 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule.(5) Schedule 3, heading to Part 1, page 93 (lines 4 to 7), omit the heading, substitute:Part 1—Rights of members to transfer to other superannuation schemes(6) Schedule 3, items 1 to 14, page 93 (line 8) to page 96 (line 21), omit the items.(7) Schedule 3, items 16 to 28, page 97 (line 8) to page 99 (line 2), omit the items.(8) Schedules 4 to 8, page 102 (line 2) to page 107 (line 6), omit the Schedules.(9) Schedule 10, page 109 (lines 2 to 12), omit the Schedule.As I indicated previously, Labor's amendments to this bill are designed to keep the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to his 28 February 1996 promise to all Commonwealth public servants not to cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes. We do this by opposing the closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. The amendments also propose that employees be provided with a genuine choice of funds from 1 July 2000, including access to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, which is the natural industry fund for all Commonwealth public servants.As I also indicated previously, by moving the amendments in this way, we would allow the other administrative changes to pass. I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate that the Prime Minister and his government ought to be condemned for breaking that promise to existing and prospective Commonwealth public servants not to cut and destroy their superannuation fund, which is of course precisely what they have done by closing the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme.The Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) indicated in closing the second reading debate that this is a way of offering choice to Commonwealth public servants. We know that in fact this is an attempt to hide the truth of the matter, just as the surcharge tax was an attempt to hide the Prime Minister's new tax on superannuation, despite having promised there would be no new taxes or increases of existing taxes. The closure of the PSS will limit the choices of new Commonwealth public servants, not enhance them. That is why our amendments oppose closure of the PSS and why we are offering employees a true choice of fund from 1 July 2000. After that date employees can reach agreement with their employers to opt out of the PSS should they choose to do so. It will be entirely up to the individual—genuine employee choice. It will not be forced employer choice, as is provided for under the government model. That is consistent with Labor's broader superannuation choice of fund model which best meets the needs of those whose superannuation funds are at stake—not the vested interests but the interests of the employees themselves.This bill contains other measures which we are not opposing and the amendments will allow those measures to go through. As we are opposing the closure of the PSS, in our view there is no need to proceed with the bill which merges the CSS and the PSS boards into the Commonwealth Superannuation Board. Although it is not necessary to pursue these matters into division, we oppose the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 . In the same way the measures outlined in the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 also are not necessary and Labor will be opposing that bill.When he was summing up, the Minister for Finance and Administration indicated that the changes in relation to choice of fund were not going to be proceeded with as far as the date was concerned. So, if I understand the minister correctly, it is the government's intention to line up choice of fund generally with choice of fund for Commonwealth public servants. I was critical in my second reading remarks of a different regime applying and, accordingly, we would regard it as appropriate that choice of fund generally operate at the same time as choice of fund for Commonwealth public servants. I note that this was different advice from that which my adviser received in terms of the Commonwealth's intentions in this regard.I also note that, for both Commonwealth public servants generally and the community at large, to say nothing of the impact on the superannuation industry, it is not satisfactory that the government is playing hide-and-seek with the choice of fund date. We would expect that the government would advise us all as to what that date will be. It did not give the date in the budget and it has not yet indicated when it proposes to apply choice of fund. We believe that date ought to be 1 July 2000. That is one of the things which we are pursuing in these amendments and we would seek the support of the House for those amendments.12:09:003140Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Before responding to the amendments before the chair I will just respond to that last matter, which I did refer to in my closing remarks of the second reading debate. There is a wish for government to have consistency with the public sector superannuation schemes and the choice that will be applicable there with the broader superannuation arrangements for choice. So, to maintain that consistency, the government will defer and move the appropriate amendments for that deferral in the Senate in respect of the starting date for the closure of the PSS and the choice. As to when that date will be indicated, I believe it is very close. There are some mechanical matters which are being looked at at this very moment but I can indicate to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) that the government will make an announcement on that in the very near future.The government does not accept the amendments before the chair, which are about deferring the closure of the PSS. The reality is that the government has honoured its election commitment. The appropriation will be there in respect of the funding available to ensure that all members of the public sector, through their own choice, will be able to make their contribution and the employer's contribution will be provided for in the budget to maintain their entitlements for superannuation and to maintain that level of superannuation but, again, through a choice of schemes as they may wish.It is for those reasons that we believe this is in the interests of the public sector. It is modern and it is relevant to what is there today to allow people in their employment to be able to determine what they wish to add. They can contribute significantly more if they wish, if that is important, depending on the type of work that they are doing, their age and the way in which they seek to plan for their retirement. That choice will be there as a result of this legislation. It is for those reasons that the government rejects the amendments moved by the opposition. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.12:16:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.B. Reid)46Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.82Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.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. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G.,Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Evans, G. J. Cadman, A. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.12:21:003141Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 16:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), after "Schedule 1", insert ", and Schedule 4A,".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:(2) Subject to section 2, the Rules for the Administration of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme contained in the Schedule to the Trust Deed (within the meaning of the Superannuation Act 1990 ) are amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in Schedule 4A to this Act, and any other item in Schedule 4A to this Act has effect according to its terms. (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), after item 3, insert:3A Subsection 3(1)Insert: CSS Board means the CSS Board that existed under section 27A of this Act as previously in force.(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 3), after subsection (2), insert:(2A) An authority or other body that is an approved authority under subsection (2) ceases to be an approved authority under that subsection if: (a) it is a body corporate with a share capital and any of the voting shares in it that are beneficially owned by the Commonwealth at the commencement of this section cease to be so owned; or (b) the financial statements prepared by it for any financial year ending after the commencement of this section that are publicly available show that the percentage of its revenue for that year that was received from sources other than the Commonwealth exceeded 70% and also exceeded the percentage of its revenue that was shown, in the last publicly available financial statements prepared by it for a financial year that ended at or before that commencement, to have been received from sources other than the Commonwealth.(5) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 8), after item 45, insert:45A After section 40Insert:40A Vesting of Fund, and assets and liabilities, in the Board(1) The Fund is, by this subsection, vested in the Board.(2) The assets of the Fund, and any assets acquired out of, or by the investment of, money in the Fund, immediately before 1 July 1998 vest in the Board as trustee of the Fund or of the assets, as the case may be, by this subsection and without the need for any conveyance, transfer, assignment or assurance.(3) Any other assets of the CSS Board immediately before 1 July 1998 vest in the Board by this subsection and without the need for any conveyance, transfer, assignment or assurance.(4) Any liabilities of the Fund, and any liabilities relating to assets referred to in subsec tion (2), immediately before 1 July 1998 become liabilities of the Board in its capacity as trustee of the Fund or of those assets, as the case may be.(5) Any other liabilities of the CSS Board immediately before 1 July 1998 become liabilities of the Board.(6) Immediately after the preceding subsections take effect: (a) the CSS Board is abolished; and (b) the Board becomes the trustee of the Fund in place of the CSS Board; and (c) the Board becomes, for all purposes, including the rules of private international law, the successor of the CSS Board in relation to the assets and liabilities referred to in those subsections.(7) Nothing in this section effects a change in the beneficial ownership of the Fund or of any asset referred to in subsection (2) or (3).(8) In this section: asset means any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future and whether vested or contingent) in real or personal property of any description. liability means any liability, debt, duty or obligation (whether present or future and whether vested or contingent).(6) Schedule 1, item 177, page 60 (lines 27 to 30), omit the item, substitute:177 Before subsection 60(1)Insert: (1A) This section does not apply to a person who makes an election under subsection 61AB(1).(7) Schedule 1, item 178, page 61 (line 1), omit "(1A)", substitute "(1AA)".(8) Schedule 1, item 217, page 76 (line 8), after paragraph (1)(b), insert: or (c) either: (i) the person has elected under subsection 110T(1) that Part VIB apply to him or her; or (ii) regulation 15, 15A or 15B of the Superannuation (CSS) Former Eligible Employees Regulations applies to the person; and no benefits under this Act have been paid or begun to be paid to the person.(9) Schedule 1, item 249, page 87 (after line 23), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) is not taken by section 58 to have retired involuntarily; and (10) Schedule 3, item 9, page 94 (after line 11), after subsection (2), insert:(2A) An authority or other body that is an approved authority under subsection (2) ceases to be an approved authority under that subsection if: (a) it is a body corporate with a share capital and any of the voting shares in it that are beneficially owned by the Commonwealth at the commencement of this section cease to be so owned; or (b) the financial statements prepared by it for a financial year ending after the commencement of this section that are publicly available show that the percentage of its revenue for that year that was received from sources other than the Commonwealth exceeded 70% and also exceeded the percentage of its revenue that was shown, in the last publicly available financial statements prepared by it for a financial year that ended at or before that commencement, to have been received from sources other than the Commonwealth.(11) Schedule 3, page 93 (after line 21), after item 5, insert:5A Section 3 Insert: PSS Board means the PSS Board that existed under section 20 of this Act as previously in force.(12) Schedule 3, item 10, page 95 (lines 27 to 31), omit section 4A, substitute:4A Vesting of PSS Fund, and assets and liabilities, in the Board(1) The PSS Fund is, by this subsection, vested in the Board.(2) The assets of the PSS Fund, and any assets acquired out of, or by the investment of, money in the PSS Fund, immediately before 1 July 1998 vest in the Board as trustee of the PSS Fund or of the assets, as the case may be, by this subsection and without the need for any conveyance, transfer, assignment or assurance.(3) Any other assets of the PSS Board immediately before 1 July 1998 vest in the Board by this subsection and without the need for any conveyance, transfer, assignment or assurance.(4) Any liabilities of the PSS Fund, and any liabilities relating to assets referred to in subsection (2), immediately before 1 July 1998 become liabilities of the Board in its capacity as trustee of the PSS Fund or of those assets, as the case may be.(5) Any other liabilities of the PSS Board immediately before 1 July 1998 become liabilities of the Board.(6) Immediately after the preceding subsections take effect: (a) the PSS Board is abolished; and (b) the Board becomes the trustee of the PSS Fund in place of the PSS Board; and (c) the Board becomes, for all purposes, including the rules of private international law, the successor of the PSS Board in relation to the assets and liabilities referred to in those subsections.(7) Nothing in this section effects a change in the beneficial ownership of the PSS Fund or of any asset referred to in subsection (2) or (3).(8) In this section: asset means any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future and whether vested or contingent) in real or personal property of any description. liability means any liability, debt, duty or obligation (whether present or future and whether vested or contingent).(13) Schedule 3, item 14, page 96 (line 21), omit "after becoming an eligible person", substitute "after the date of the first occasion on or after 1 July 1998 on which the person became an eligible person".(14) Page 102 (after line 6) after Schedule 4, insert:Schedule 4A—Amendment of the Rules for the Administration of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme1 Rule 1.2.1 (definition of equivalent employment ) Repeal the definition.2 Rule 1.2.1 (tenth dot point of the definition of involuntary retirement ) Repeal the dot point.3 Paragraph 5.7.1(B) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (B) ceases membership, before 1 July 1999, on involuntary retirement before minimum retiring age and chooses to be paid half or more of his/her final benefit accrual as a pension (see Rule 5.7.2) ; or4 Paragraph 5.7.2(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) before 1 July 1999 on involuntary retirement before minimum retiring age , and chooses to take half or more of his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; and5 Division 3 of Part 6 Repeal the Division, substitute:Division 3—Involuntary Retirement Benefit OptionsBenefit options—before minimum retiring age6.3.1 A member who, before 1 July 1999, ceases membership on involuntary retirement before minimum retiring age is entitled to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit , or, as an alternative, may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her final benefit accrual that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash, or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her final benefit accrual , convert the balance into a pension ; or (b) to take his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; or (c) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual; or (d) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided the combined benefit does not exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ; unless: (A) he/she ceases membership on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function (see Division 6 of Part 6) ; or (B) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.11) .6.3.2 A member who, on or after 1 July 1999, ceases membership on involuntary retirement before minimum retiring age is entitled to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit , or, as an alternative, may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her final benefit accrual that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash and that does not exceed his/her accumulated member contributions , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (iii) convert the balance of his/her final benefit accrual into a pension ; or (b) to take his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; or (c) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (d) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided the combined benefit does not exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ; unless: (A) he/she ceases membership on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function (see Division 6 of Part 6) ; or (B) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.11) .Benefit Options after minimum retiring age6.3.3 A member who ceases membership on involuntary retirement on or after minimum retiring age may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her final benefit accrual that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash, or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance, if any, of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance, if any, of his/her final benefit accrual ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her final benefit accrual , convert the balance into a pension ; or (b) to take his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; or (c) to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (d) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual; or (e) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided the combined benefit does not exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ;unless: (A) he/she ceases membership on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function (see Division 6 of Part 6) ; or (B) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.11) .6 Division 6 of Part 6Repeal the Division, substitute:Sale or Transfer of Assets Benefit OptionsDivision 6—Sale of Transfer of Assets Benefit OptionsBenefit options PSS membership continues6.6.1 A member who continues to be a member on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function is not entitled to any benefits until he/she ceases membership. When the member ceases membership he/she will be entitled to benefits under whichever Rule is applicable to him/her at that time.Benefit options PSS membership ceases6.6.2 A member who ceases membership on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function and: (a) continues in employment with the new owner or transferee; and (b) could have continued to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer;may choose: (i) to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided it will not cause him/her to exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ;unless he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme(see rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see rule 6.8.11) .Benefit options Continues in employment, but does not change employer6.6.3 A member who ceases membership on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function and continues in employment with the new owner or transferee, but does not change employer, is entitled to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit , or, as an alternative, may choose: (i) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (ii) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided it will not cause him/her to exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ;unless: (A) he/she could have continued to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer (see Rule 6.6.2) ; or (B) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme(see rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see rule 6.8.11) .Benefit options—Involuntary retirement before 1 July 19996.6.4 A member who ceases membership on involuntary retirement before 1 July 1999 on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function is entitled to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit , or, as an alternative, may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her final benefit accrual that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash, or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her final benefit accrual , convert the balance into a pension ; provided that the member : (A) ceases membership before minimum retiring age ; or (B) ceases membership on or after minimum retiring age and before age 60, and remains in the workforce; or (b) to be paid a lump sum of his/her final benefit accrual , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her final benefit accrual , convert the balance into a pension ; provided that the member : (A) ceases membership on or after minimum retiring age and before age 60, and retires permanently from the workforce; or (B) ceases membership on or after age 60; or (c) to take his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; or (d) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual; or (e) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided the combined benefit does not exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ;unless: (A) he/she: (i) continues in employment with the new owner or transferee; and (ii) could have continued to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer (see Rule 6.6.2) ; or (B) he/she: (i) continues in employment with the new owner or transferee, but does not change employer; and (ii) was not allowed to continue to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer (see Rule 6.6.3) ; or (C) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.11) . Benefit options—Circumstances other than on involuntary retirement, and involuntary retirement on or after 1 July 19996.6.5 A member who ceases membership:. in circumstances other than on involuntary retirement ; or. on involuntary retirement on or after 1 July 1999;on the sale or transfer of all or part of an organisation, business, service, asset or function is entitled to leave his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit , or, as an alternative, may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her final benefit accrual that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash and that does not exceed his/her accumulated member contributions , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (iii) convert the balance of his/her final benefit accrual into a pension ; provided that the member : (A) ceases membership before minimum retiring age ; or (B) ceases membership on or after minimum retiring age and before age 60, and remains in the workforce; or (b) to be paid a lump sum of his/her final benefit accrual , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) leave the balance of his/her final benefit accrual in the scheme as a preserved benefit ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her final benefit accrual ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her final benefit accrual , convert the balance into a pension ; provided that the member : (A) ceases membership on or after minimum retiring age and before age 60, and retires permanently from the workforce; or (B) ceases membership on or after age 60; or (c) to take his/her final benefit accrual as a pension ; or (d) to roll-over his/her final benefit accrual , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (e) to combine his/her final benefit accrual with the benefit accruing under another current period of membership , provided the combined benefit does not exceed his/her maximum benefit(see Rules 5.2.20 and 5.3.20) ;unless: (A) he/she: (i) continues in employment with the new owner or transferee; and (ii) could have continued to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer (see Rule 6.6.2) ; or (B) he/she: (i) continues in employment with the new owner or transferee, but does not change employer; and (ii) was not allowed to continue to be a member of the scheme after the sale or transfer (see Rule 6.6.3) ; or (C) he/she transfers his/her benefits to an eligible superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.6) , or joins an approved superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.10) or an authorised superannuation scheme (see Rule 6.8.11) .7 Division 7 of Part 6 Repeal the Division.8 Paragraph 6.8.1(c)(iii) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (iii) except in respect of a former member who is retrenched before 1 July 1999, not to pay to the former member the whole or any part of: (A) the employer component of an amount transferred from the PSS scheme , or (B) the employer component, or the part that represents that component, of any other amount transferred from the PSS scheme to another eligible superannuation scheme and subsequently transferred to the scheme; unless preserved benefits under the SIS Act would be payable in the same circumstances; and9 Paragraph 6.8.1(c)(v) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (v) not pay a former member who is retrenched before 1 July 1999 that part of the transferred amount that is or would be compulsorily preserved under the SIS Act until the conditions for payment of compulsorily preserved amounts under that Act and regulations are met; and10 Division 4 of Part 8 Repeal the Division, substitute:Division 4—Early Access to Preserved Benefit on Involuntary Retirement after Sale or Transfer of AssetsBenefit options for certain preserved benefit members on subsequent retrenchment8.4.1 A former member who was employed by an organisation, business, service or asset or function nominated by the Minister and agreed by the Board immediately before the date of sale or transfer of that organisation, business, service or asset or function, and who: (a) was not allowed to continue to be a member after the sale or transfer; and (b) became entitled to a preserved benefit under Rule 6.6.3, 6.6.4 or 6.6.5 which includes all of his/her accumulated member contributions (other than any refunded Excess Contribution Multiple), accumulated productivity contributions and unfunded preserved benefit ; and (c) remains continuously in employment with the new owner or transferee, or any subsequent new owner or transferee; and (d) is subsequently retrenched by the new owner or transferee, or any subsequent new owner or transferee, within a period of three years of the date of sale or transfer of the organisation, business, service, asset or function; and (e) has not reached his/her maximum retiring age ; may choose, within three months after the date of the retrenchment: (A) any one of the options in Rule 8.4.2 if he/she is retrenched before 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age ; or (B) any one of the options in Rule 8.4.3 if he/she is retrenched on or after 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age ; or (C) any one of the options in Rule 8.4.4 if he/she is retrenched on or after minimum retiring age .Benefit options on retrenchment before 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age8.4.2 A preserved benefit member who is retrenched before 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age under the conditions set out in Rule 8.4.1 may choose: (a) to retain his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (b) to take his/her preserved benefit as a pension ; or (c) to roll-over his/her preserved benefit ; or (d) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her preserved benefit that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash, or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) retain the balance of his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her preserved benefit ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her preserved benefit , convert the balance into a pension .Benefit options on retrenchment on or after 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age8.4.3 A preserved benefit member who is retrenched on or after 1 July 1999 and before minimum retiring age under the conditions set out in Rule 8.4.1 may choose: (a) to retain his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (b) to take his/her preserved benefit as a pension ; or (c) to roll-over his/her preserved benefit , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (d) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her preserved benefit that the SIS Act permits to be paid in cash and that does not exceed his/her accumulated member contributions , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) retain the balance of his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (ii) roll-over the balance of his/her preserved benefit , with any amount that exceeds the member's accumulated member contributions being treated as a preserved benefit for the purposes of the SIS Act ; or (iii) convert the balance into a pension .Benefit options on retrenchment after minimum retiring age8.4.4 A preserved benefit member who is retrenched on or after minimum retiring age under the conditions set out in Rule 8.4.1 may choose: (a) to be paid a lump sum of that part of his/her preserved benefit that is permitted to be paid in cash under the SIS Act , or a lump sum of less than that amount, and: (i) retain the balance, if any, of his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (ii) roll-over the balance, if any, of his/her preserved benefit ; or (iii) if the balance is 50% or more of his/her preserved benefit , convert the balance into a pension ; or (b) to take his/her preserved benefit as a pension ; or (c) to retain his/her preserved benefit in the PSS scheme ; or (d) to roll-over his/her preserved benefit.(15) Schedule 7, items 4 and 5, page 105 (lines 18 to 21), omit the items.(16) Schedule 7, page 106 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:8 Section 9COmit "section 4C", substitute "section 4A or 4C".UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—We will grant leave, but we do expect from the minister some indication as to the intent of these amendments.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—The amendments before the House are of an administrative arrangement; they relate to the Commonwealth's civilian superannuation schemes and they include of course some of the provisions that are relevant to the establishment of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board, which the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1997 makes provision for. The new board, amongst other things, will take over the responsibilities of the CSS and the PSS boards in relation to the administration of both the CSS and PSS and the management of the funds of those schemes.The amendments to the bills in this package avoid unintended costs to scheme members and they avoid unintended costs to the Commonwealth or the funds from this transfer of responsibility. They also clarify the taxation status of the board. The amendment to the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 ensures that the board will continue to use ComSuper as its provider of scheme administration services for a period of at least three years from 1 July 1998.What this amounts to is that there is, as I am sure all honourable members know, an administrative team in ComSuper at the present—I think the last numbers I saw were of a little in excess of 200 employees. They are mainly based here in Canberra and I believe it is important that there be security of employment given to those people and that security of employment will, of course, flow from the fact that it will be not up to the board to make a choice for administration of these schemes from 1 July 1998. In those circumstances I believe that is an eminently sensible approach to the way in which the schemes will be administered from that date.Other amendments to the bills extend to the PSS rules which change the treatment of members who leave the scheme as a result of a sale, transfer or outsourcing. Changes to the CSS are already included in the bills. In addition, the amendments clarify the intention of some of the provisions in the draft bills to make technical corrections and I can indicate to honourable members that there is no financial impact emanating from any of these amendments. The amendments are of an administrative nature. The one that is of substance extends security to the employees of ComSuper. It will be incumbent, as a result of this amendment, on the boards to ensure that ComSuper continues with the administration of public sector superannuation schemes for up to three years from 1 July 1998. I commend the amendments to the House.12:25:003149Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition does not propose to divide on these amendments but just in order to set the record straight I will indicate briefly our position in relation to them, a position which follows simply and logically from the position we have taken concerning the superannuation legislation bill as a whole. The first and second amendments are not opposed by us; amendments (3), (4) and (5), however, do follow from measures to which we are opposed so, logically, we oppose those as well. Amendments (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) are not opposed by us, but amendments (11), (12) and (13) also relate to matters which would not be required in the event that our amendments were successful in the Senate and, therefore, we will not be supporting them either. The most substantial of the amendments is amendment (14) and we do not object to that but we do object to amendments (15) and (16). So, briefly, that is our position which, as I said before, just follows from the position we have taken concerning this legislation generally.I might just point out for the benefit of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), who has said that this is providing employees with choice in relation to superannuation funds and, therefore, that this is a good thing, that one of the concerns that the opposition has about choice is that there is a lack of community information about what choice is, the fact that it is coming, what sorts of options will be there and what impact these options might have on retirement incomes.The extent of that lack of knowledge about choice comes out in the Savings Pulse survey I referred to in the second reading debate. I might add that the report on the survey commenced with the heading `Australians Confused and Concerned about Superannuation and Retirement'. The first paragraph begins:It is just as well that the Federal Government has decided to postpone the introduction of superannuation Members Choice.The survey indicates that Australians are suffering from superannuation and retirement information overload and have yet to grasp what they must do to look after their own needs. It says that Australians generally are confused and somewhat fearful in relation to superannuation issues. Specifically on the matter of choice of fund, the survey points out that some 52 per cent of Australians in full-time employment say that they are unaware of the member choice in superannuation funds legislation. So with this brave new world of superannuation choice about to descend on us, more than half the work force is presently unaware that it is about to happen. That is a very poor foundation from which to begin this.An honourable member interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yes, there is a lot of talk that there is going to be an education campaign to inform people. I saw an advertisement recently where an elderly retired couple, driving along the Great Ocean Road in a sports car, got out with a picnic hamper and looked very pleased with themselves. Undoubtedly, this was a piece of private advertising but I thought, `That is the choice advertising campaign; it is just around the corner.' Against that background, we are very concerned that a lot of people will find themselves inveigled into putting their superannuation into second-rate and third-rate options and will end up with lower retirement incomes as a result, and that this is simply part of the pattern where superannuation is not being valued by this government, at the expense of private savings and national retirement incomes which we, as a nation and individually, will need. Accordingly, although we will not be proceeding with the matter to a division, we express those concerns about what the government is doing in relation to these amendments and what it is doing in relation to the treatment of Commonwealth superannuation and public servants as a whole.12:29:003150Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I have noted the comments of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), who is leading for the opposition on this debate. I have noted the encouragement he has given the government to embark upon a public education campaign to ensure that all workers understand that choice might be there—there seems to be a lack of knowledge on that choice at this point in time. The honourable member has referred again to the fact that the government will be deferring the commencement date to ensure consistency for all superannuation schemes. The announcement of that date, as I indicated earlier, will be made by the government in the very near future. I do not propose to prolong the debate but I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3150Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3150r4043150Consideration resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3150Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:32:003150Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 25 together:(1) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 17), after the definition of Chairman , insert: CSS Board has the same meaning as in the repealed Superannuation Act 1976 .(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of Public Sector Superannuation Scheme , insert: PSS Board has the same meaning as in the repealed Superannuation Act 1990 .(3) Clause 8, page 8 (line 13), omit "the SIS Act", substitute "subsection (1A)".(4) Clause 8, page 8 (after line 16), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The Minister may not make a determination under subsection (1) unless: (a) the Board has consented to the making of the determination; or (b) the determination: (i) relates to a payment by an employer-sponsor within the meaning of the SIS Act that will, after the making of the determination, be required or permitted to be made under the legislation or instrument; or (ii) relates solely to the termination, in whole or in part, of the legislation or instrument or of any superannuation scheme constituted by or under the legislation or instrument; or (iii) is made in circumstances covered by regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph 60(1)(b)(iii) of the SIS Act.(5) Clause 8, page 8 (lines 28 and 29), omit paragraph (b), substitute:(b) complying with a requirement of the SIS Act or ensuring that the provisions are consistent with a requirement of any other law of the Commonwealth; or(6) Clause 8, page 8 (after line 31), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) The references in subsections (1) and (3) to determinations varying the operation of any provisions of the superannuation legislation or of a declared non-statutory superannuation instrument include references to determinations inserting new provisions in the legislation or instrument.(7) Clause 8, page 9 (line 9), at the end of paragraph (4)(b), add:; or (c) provisions conferring powers on the Board; or (d) section 21 of the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 .(8) Clause 10, page 11 (line 6), omit "after consulting", substitute "with the agreement of".(9) Clause 10, page 11 (line 17), after "who", insert "have reached the age of 18 years and".(10) Clause 10, page 12 (after line 2), after subclause (5), insert:(5A) A person is not eligible to be appointed as a member unless the person: (a) is ordinarily resident in Australia; and (b) has reached the age of 18 years.(11) Clause 12, page 13 (line 22), omit "subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (2A) and (3)". (12) Clause 12, page 13 (line 25), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) if there is a vacancy in an office of member, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office under section 10; or(13) Clause 12, page 14 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (3), substitute:(2A) If a vacancy referred to in paragraph (2)(a) exists because no one has previously been appointed to the office concerned under section 10, no person who is appointed to act in the office during the vacancy may continue so to act after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of commencement of this Part.(3) A person cannot be appointed under subsection (2): (a) to act in a vacant office the previous holder of which was an elected member; or (b) to act in an office the holder of which is an elected member;unless the person is chosen by an electoral process determined in accordance with subsection 10(2) or, if there is no one available for appointment who was chosen by that electoral process, the other members of the Board have agreed to the person's appointment.(3A) A reference in subsection (3) to a person chosen by an electoral process is a reference to a person chosen at the last election held by that electoral process to choose people for appointment under subsection (2).(14) Clause 12, page 14 (line 22), omit "subsections (3) and (4)", substitute "subsection (4)".(15) Clause 23, page 21 (line 20), omit "Minister", substitute "authorised person".(16) Clause 23, page 21 (line 25), omit "Minister", substitute "authorised person".(17) Clause 23, page 21 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (6), substitute:(5A) In deciding whether to give a direction to an agency under subsection (5), and in determining the part of the estimated costs to be stated in the direction, the authorised person is to take into account the Board's responsibilities referred to in subsection 7(2) and any other matters that he or she thinks relevant.(5B) Subsection (5A) does not prevent an agency from agreeing with the Board in respect of a financial year: (a) if the authorised person has not given a direction to the agency to pay to the Board a part of the estimated costs—to pay to the Board an amount in respect of the costs referred to in subsection (2) in relation to the financial year; or (b) if the authorised person has given a direction to the agency to pay to the Board a part of the estimated costs—to pay to the Board an additional amount in respect of the costs referred to in subsection (2) in relation to the financial year.(6) An agency: (a) must pay to the Board: (i) any amount that it is directed to pay to the Board under subsection (5); and (ii) any amount that it agrees to pay to the Board under subsection (5B); and (b) may apply for the purpose of making any such payment any money under its control.(6A) The Minister may, by writing, authorise a person to give directions to an agency under subsection (5).(18) Clause 23, page 22 (lines 2 to 4), omit the definition of agency , substitute: agency means: (a) a Department of State; or (b) a Department of the Parliament; or (c) a branch or part of the Australian Public Service in relation to which a person has, under an Act, the powers of, or exercisable by, the Secretary to a Department of the Australian Public Service; or (d) an authority or other body (other than a State or a State authority) that employs people who are eligible employees for the purposes of the repealed Superannuation Act 1976 ;and includes an authority or other body that is an approved authority for the purposes of the repealed Superannuation Act 1976 .(19) Clause 23, page 22 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: authorised person means the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister under subsection (6A) to give directions to agencies under subsection (5).(20) Clause 24, page 22 (line 20), omit "Minister", substitute "authorised person".(21) Clause 24, page 22 (line 25), omit "Minister", substitute "authorised person". (22) Clause 24, page 22 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (6), substitute:(5A) In deciding whether to give a direction to an agency under subsection (5), and in determining the part of the estimated costs to be stated in the direction, the authorised person is to take into account the Board's responsibilities referred to in subsection 7(2) and any other matters that he or she thinks relevant.(5B) Subsection (5A) does not prevent an agency from agreeing with the Board in respect of a financial year: (a) if the authorised person has not given a direction to the agency to pay to the Board a part of the estimated costs—to pay to the Board an amount in respect of the costs referred to in subsection (2) in relation to the financial year; or (b) if the authorised person has given a direction to the agency to pay to the Board a part of the estimated costs—to pay to the Board an additional amount in respect of the costs referred to in subsection (2) in relation to the financial year.(6) An agency: (a) must pay to the Board: (i) any amount that it is directed to pay to the Board under subsection (5); and (ii) any amount that it agrees to pay to the Board under subsection (5B); and (b) may apply for the purpose of making any such payment any money under its control.(6A) The Minister may, by writing, authorise a person to give directions to an agency under subsection (5).(23) Clause 24, page 23 (lines 2 to 4), omit the definition of agency , substitute: agency means: (a) a Department of State; or (b) a Department of the Parliament; or (c) a branch or part of the Australian Public Service in relation to which a person has, under an Act, the powers of, or exercisable by, the Secretary to a Department of the Australian Public Service; or (d) an authority or other body (other than a State or a State authority) that employs people who are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme;and includes an authority or other body that is an approved authority for the purposes of the repealed Superannuation Act 1990 . (24) Clause 24, page 21 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: authorised person means the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister under subsection (6A) to give directions to agencies under subsection (5).(25) Clause 27, page 24 (lines 26 to 32) and page 25 (lines 1 to 19), omit the clause, substitute:27 Exemptions from taxation(1) Subject to this section, the Board in so far as it is a trustee, the CSS Fund and the PSS Fund are not liable to pay tax under: (a) a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) a law of a State or Territory to which the Commonwealth is not subject.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following laws: (a) the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ; (b) the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ; (c) the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 ; (d) a law declared by the regulations to be a law to which subsection (1) does not apply.(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, except in so far as it is a trustee, the Board is not liable to pay tax under: (a) a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) a law of a State or Territory to which the Commonwealth is not subject.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a law declared by the regulations to be a law to which that subsection does not apply.(5) No tax or charge is payable under a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State or Territory in respect of anything done (including any contract made, transaction entered into, or document made, executed, lodged or given) in connection with: (a) the assumption by the Board of responsibilities in relation to any of the superannuation legislation or any declared non-statutory superannuation instrument; or (b) anything done by the Board for the purposes of the assumption of any of those responsibilities; or (c) the vesting in, or transfer to, the Board under section 40A of the repealed Superannuation Act 1976 of: (i) the CSS Fund; or (ii) any assets of that Fund; or (iii) any assets acquired out of, or by the investment of, money in that Fund; or (iv) any assets of the CSS Board; or (v) any liabilities of the CSS Fund; or (vi) any liabilities of the CSS Board; or (d) the vesting in, or transfer to, the Board under section 4A of the repealed Superannuation Act 1990 of: (i) the PSS Fund; or (ii) any assets of that Fund; or (iii) any assets acquired out of, or by the investment of, money in that Fund; or (iv) any assets of the PSS Board; or (v) any liabilities of the PSS Fund; or (vi) any liabilities of the PSS Board; or (e) the securing of the registration of any right, title or interest of the Board in any land that vests in the Board as mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) or the registration of the ownership by the Board of any other asset that vests in the Board as mentioned in either of those paragraphs, including the giving or lodging of a certificate under section 3B, 3C, 8B or 8C of the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 or the doing of anything as the result of the giving or lodging of such a certificate.(6) The reference in subsection (5) to a document made, executed, lodged or given includes, to avoid doubt, a reference to any instrument of transfer, statement or return required to be made, executed, lodged or given under a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State or Territory.(7) No tax is payable under a law of a State or Territory in respect of income derived from the investment of money standing to the credit of the CSS Fund or the PSS Fund or otherwise from the management of either of those Funds by the Board.(8) In this section: tax means a tax of any description and, to avoid doubt: (a) despite subsection 269A(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and any provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 , includes income tax; and (b) includes stamp duty.I have already covered the content of the bills before the House. I again emphasise that the amendments are of a machinery and administrative nature. They will ensure that there is a minimum of disruption as and when the bills are passed by the parliament, the boards are constructed and the choice is in place. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3154Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3154r4153154Consideration resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3154Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:35:003154Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 12:(1) Page 3 (after line 7), before clause 4, insert:3A Transitional provision consequential on vesting of assets and liabilities in Commonwealth Superannuation Board(1) This section applies in relation to assets that vest in, or liabilities that become liabilities of, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under section 40A of the Superannuation Act 1976 .(2) All proceedings relating to those assets or liabilities that were begun before 1 July 1998 by or against the CSS Board and were pending immediately before that date are taken to be proceedings pending by or against the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.(3) Any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done in relation to those assets or liabilities before 1 July 1998 by, to or in respect of the CSS Board is (to the extent that the act, matter or thing has any effect) taken to have been done or omitted by, to or in respect of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.(4) A reference in any Act, in any instrument made under any Act or in any document of any kind to the CSS Board is, to the extent that it relates to any of those assets or liabilities, taken to be, or to include, a reference to the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.3B Transfers of land may be registered(1) This section applies if: (a) any right, title or interest in particular land vests in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 40A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) there is lodged with a land registration official a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister or by a person authorised under subsection (4); and (ii) identifies the land, whether by reference to a map or otherwise; and (iii) states that the right, title or interest has become vested in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 40A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976 . (2) The land registration official may: (a) register the matter in a way that is the same as, or similar to, the way in which dealings in land of that kind are registered; and (b) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate. (3) A document that appears to be a certificate under subsection (1) is taken to be such a certificate, and to have been properly given, unless the contrary is established. (4) The Minister may, by writing, authorise a person to sign certificates under subsection (1). (5) The Lands Acquisition Act 1989 does not apply in relation to anything done under this section. (6) In this section: land registration official , in relation to land, means the Registrar of Titles or other proper officer of the State or Territory in which the land is situated.3C Certificates in relation to assets other than land (1) This section applies if: (a) an asset other than land vests in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 40A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) there is lodged with an assets official a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister or by a person authorised under subsection (4) of this section; and (ii) identifies the asset; and (iii) states that the asset has become vested in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 40A(2) of that Act. (2) The assets official may: (a) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate as if it were a proper and appropriate instrument for transactions in relation to assets of that kind; and (b) make such entries in the register as are necessary having regard to the effect of subsection 40A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976 . (3) A document that appears to be a certificate under subsection (1) is taken to be such a certificate, and to have been properly given, unless the contrary is established. (4) The Minister may, by writing, appoint a person to sign certificates under subsection (1). (5) In this section: assets official means the person or authority who, under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, under a trust instrument or otherwise, has responsibility for keeping a register in relation to assets of the kind concerned.(2) Clause 7, page 5 (line 15), omit "for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ", substitute "for all purposes".(3) Clause 7, page 5 (line 28), omit "for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ", substitute "for all purposes".(4) Clause 8, page 6 (line 11), after "terms", insert "but have effect only".(5) Page 8 (after line 6), before clause 9, insert:8A Transitional provision consequential on vesting of assets and liabilities in Commonwealth Superannuation Board(1) This section applies in relation to assets that vest in, or liabilities that become liabilities of, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under section 4A of the Superannuation Act 1990 . (2) All proceedings relating to those assets or liabilities that were begun before 1 July 1998 by or against the PSS Board and were pending immediately before that date are taken to be proceedings pending by or against the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.(3) Any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done in relation to those assets or liabilities before 1 July 1998 by, to or in respect of the PSS Board is (to the extent that the act, matter or thing has any effect) taken to have been done or omitted by, to or in respect of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.(4) A reference in any Act, in any instrument made under any Act or in any document of any kind to the PSS Board is, to the extent that it relates to any of those assets or liabilities, taken to be, or to include, a reference to the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.8B Transfers of land may be registered(1) This section applies if: (a) any right, title or interest in particular land vests in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 4A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) there is lodged with a land registration official a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister or by a person authorised under subsection (4); and (ii) identifies the land, whether by reference to a map or otherwise; and (iii) states that the right, title or interest has become vested in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 4A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1990 .(2) The land registration official may: (a) register the matter in a way that is the same as, or similar to, the way in which dealings in land of that kind are registered; and (b) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate.(3) A document that appears to be a certificate under subsection (1) is taken to be such a certificate, and to have been properly given, unless the contrary is established.(4) The Minister may, by writing, authorise a person to sign certificates under subsection (1). (5) The Lands Acquisition Act 1989 does not apply in relation to anything done under this section.(6) In this section: land registration official , in relation to land, means the Registrar of Titles or other proper officer of the State or Territory in which the land is situated.8C Certificates in relation to assets other than land(1) This section applies if: (a) an asset other than land vests in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 4A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) there is lodged with an assets official a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister or by a person authorised under subsection (4); and (ii) identifies the assets; and (iii) states that the asset has become vested in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board under subsection 4A(2).(2) The assets official may: (a) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate as if it were a proper and appropriate instrument for transactions in relation to assets of that kind; and (b) make such entries in the register as are necessary having regard to the effect of subsection 4A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1990 .(3) A document that appears to be a certificate under subsection (1) is taken to be such a certificate, and to have been properly given, unless the contrary is established.(4) The Minister may, by writing, appoint a person to sign certificates under subsection (1).(5) In this section: assets official means the person or authority who, under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, under a trust instrument or otherwise, has responsibility for keeping a register in relation to assets of the kind concerned.(6) Clause 10, page 9 (lines 11 and 12), omit "for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1990 and the Trust Deed", substitute "for all purposes".(7) Clause 10, page 9 (lines 22 and 23), omit "for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1990 and the Trust Deed", substitute "for all purposes". (8) Clause 12, page 10 (line 19), after "terms", insert "but have effect only".(9) Clause 13, page 12 (line 12), after "subsection (2),", insert " but have effect only".(10) Clause 15, page 14 (lines 15 to 20), omit subclause (2).(11) Clause 17, page 16 (line 4), after "terms", insert "but have effect only".(12) Page 19 (after line 32), at the end of the Bill, add:Part 10—Provisions consequential on the conferring of functions and powers on the Commonwealth Superannuation Board21 Administration of superannuation schemes on behalf of Commonwealth Superannuation Board(1) During the period of 3 years beginning on 1 July 1998, each superannuation scheme constituted by the superannuation legislation is to be administered, on behalf of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board, by one or more nominated bodies or, if there is no nominated body, by the Commonwealth.(2) If there are 2 or more nominated bodies, the authorised person may determine: (a) the superannuation schemes that are to be respectively administered by each of those bodies; or (b) the aspects or parts of the administration of the superannuation schemes that are to be respectively administered by each of those bodies.(3) A reference in this section to the administering of, or of an aspect or part of, a superannuation scheme does not include a reference to: (a) the investment of money contributed under the scheme; or (b) the management of any such investment; or (c) the provision to the Board of such other services as are agreed between the Board and the authorised person.(4) The Minister may, by writing, authorise a person to perform the functions of the authorised person under this section.(5) The authorised person may, by writing, make determinations and nominations for the purposes of this section.(6) In this section: authorised person means the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister to perform the functions of the authorised person under this section. nominated body means an incorporated company or other body corporate that: (a) has entered into an agreement or arrangement with the Commonwealth that: (i) provides for the company or other body to be nominated for the purposes of this section; and (ii) includes provisions with respect to the charges to be made by the company or other body to the Board in connection with the administration of superannuation schemes on behalf of the Board; and (b) has been nominated by the authorised person for those purposes in accordance with the agreement or arrangement. superannuation legislation has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Act 1997 .I have already covered the amendments in my earlier remarks and do not seek to elaborate on them. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3157Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3157r518Billsr516Bills3157Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.12:36:003157Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 seek to implement the government strategy to sack en masse a couple of thousand Australian workers employed by Patrick Stevedoring. In effect, they constitute the use of taxpayers' money to bribe Chris Corrigan and Patrick Stevedoring to wipe out their existing work force because of the fact that they are members of the Maritime Union of Australia and set the scene for their replacement with other workers.The opposition will be opposing this legislation in the House. I will be moving a second reading amendment, which I will get to in a minute. In the Senate, we will be seeking to refer the legislation to a Senate committee for further consideration, particularly to consider whether it is capable of being amended into an acceptable form. The opposition has a very wide range of objections to the legislation. We believe that it is deficient on its merits—leaving aside the broader context which all honourable members will be aware of. More particularly, we object to it because it is contingent upon what we regard—and what the courts clearly think—is likely to be an unlawful conspiracy to dismiss 2,000 Australian workers—1,400 of them full-time permanent workers on the waterfront.Having said that, I should make it plain that the opposition does not object to the principle of an industry based levy for the purposes of funding redundancies in an industry; that clearly is an unexceptional principle. But we are not dealing here with an application of that principle with which we can agree. It is important from the outset to distinguish the circumstances in this particular situation from those which applied in 1989 at the outset of the WIRA process put in place by the former Hawke government and which, amongst other things, led to a very substantial reduction in the waterfront work force at the time and a massive improvement in productivity on the waterfront—things which are routinely denied by ministers in the current debate.It is worth recalling for the sake of the record that since 1989 we have seen a 75 per cent increase in the five-port average crane rate across the five major ports. Of that 75 per cent, 15 per cent has actually occurred over the last two years during the period of the Howard government. Of course, the current government has not actually done anything to improve waterfront productivity; its sole action on the waterfront is the assault on the employment rights of MUA members which is currently occurring. So, contrary to the government's propaganda, there has in fact been very substantial improvement on the waterfront as a result of that WIRA process.The first key difference between what is now being sought to be done and what occurred then is that at that time and for many years after there was a pooled labour arrangement. The wharfies were not employees of individual companies and therefore a collective mechanism was needed to enable redundancies to occur.The second key difference is that, as a result of that process, company employment was reintroduced and it was agreed that future redundancies would be the obligation of the individual company, not the government. The current government is in effect reversing that earlier decision in pursuing its current course of action.The third key difference—and this is ultimately the critical difference—is that those redundancies were voluntary: there was no conspiracy to sack people en masse, there was no attempt to wipe out people because they were members of the MUA. There was a voluntary redundancy arrangement at the time.The fourth critical difference is that those redundancies were genuine. The wharfies who were made redundant were made redundant because there was no longer work for them to do. What is occurring in the current situation is that an attempt is being made to replace existing workers who still have work to do with other workers who are not members of the union to which the existing workers belong. That means that we are not dealing with a genuine redundancy situation.The opposition has a number of objections to the merits of the legislation and they are set out in the second reading amendment which has been circulated. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because the government's proposals in their present form contain major defects, in particular:(1) they fail to ensure that no levies are placed on stevedoring companies who do not wish to access payments made under any scheme related to the package; (2) they fail to ensure payments are not to be made, either directly or indirectly, for redundancies of people dismissed unlawfully;(3) they fail to ensure that payments are not to be made, either directly or indirectly for redundancies of people whose employment is terminated in a way which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Award or other industrial agreements;(4) they fail to ensure that payments are not to be made, either directly or indirectly for redundancies of people whose employment is terminated as a result of corporate restructuring;(5) they fail to ensure that payments under the proposals are neither directly nor indirectly a substitute for appropriate redundancy provisions by employers of stevedoring labour;(6) there is no means by which Parliament can properly scrutinise payments made under the scheme and, in particular, there is no effective Parliamentary oversight of the Maritime Industry Finance Company;(7) there is no guarantee that trade on Bass Strait will not be adversely affected;(8) there is no provision to ensure that no levies are placed on cargo and vehicles not handled by major stevedoring service providers or cargo or vehicles handled for official purposes"I will briefly run through the opposition's objections. Firstly, the legislation as it is currently constituted does not require that the payments be made only with respect to lawful dismissal of workers. That is very much a key question in the light of the current proceedings that are occurring. In the Federal Court Mr Justice North upheld an appeal, determining that there is a prima facie case that these dismissals are unlawful on the basis of there being a conspiracy to breach the Workplace Relations Act.Secondly, there is no requirement in this legislation for dismissals to occur in accordance with the relevant stevedoring industry award or, indeed, enterprise bargains that have been made under the existing Workplace Relations Act. There is no requirement in the legislation that the dismissals which are being sought to be funded are not occurring on the basis of an artificial restructuring of company arrangements designed to separate ownership of the company and ownership of its assets from the actual employment obligations that the employer owes to employees, thereby creating an artificial redundancy situation consequent upon insolvency. That is precisely what is occurring in this situation. In other words, the Patrick's scheme or plan is designed to enable the company to retrench workers and not pay for it by separating companies out from their group and removing the assets from those companies. That is effectively permitted and indeed financed by this legislation.Thirdly, there is no provision in the legislation for retraining of workers, so there is contemplation of a substantial number of wharfies being made redundant. In contrast with previous schemes of this nature, no provision has been made for retraining of workers to ensure that they have some reasonable opportunity for employment elsewhere in the future. This is particularly important because of what I call `Reith's reference'. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), consequent on the polling advice he has received courtesy of the taxpayer from Mark Textor and the media strategy that has been designed for him by Jonathan Gaul, has spent the last 12 months going up and down the country telling everybody that all these people are bludgers and rorters, that they cannot be trusted and so forth. These statements are of course absolutely untrue. It is outrageous that any government in this country should so vilify any particular group of people in the country, irrespective of their view on these issues. But the key point here is that these people will, if they are made redundant, have considerable difficulty obtaining further employment because of the statements that have been made about them.Fourthly, the government is seeking to have these redundancies financed by stevedoring companies which do not intend to make any workers redundant and object to having to pay the cost. Sealand in Adelaide and Strang in Melbourne have both complained about this issue. Neither of them were consulted by the minister. The minister admits that he only consulted with the two major stevedoring companies. He is seeking to impose a tax which ultimately will be paid for by taxpay ers. It is taxpayers who are paying for this, in the same way as it is taxpayers who pay any indirect tax. Effectively, this will add to the price being charged by Sealand in Adelaide, by Strang in Melbourne and the like, without them being consulted and without them wanting this sort of arrangement.Fifthly, this situation threatens trade across Bass Strait to Tasmania. I understand an amendment will be moved—I have not seen it, as yet—by the minister to fix the problem with cars being taken over to Tasmania by tourists on the Spirit of Tasmania. It is commendable that the government has woken up to that problem, but it is only one of a range of problems, and it is not the only problem with the situation in Tasmania.Finally, there is no provision in the legislation for any parliamentary oversight of MIFCo, the Maritime Industry Finance Company, which is the vehicle through which these redundancy payments will be implemented. There is far too much ministerial discretion in this legislation.It is also important to note the circumstances of the implementation of the levy that this bill seeks to impose. One thing I find particularly significant is that Professor Fels of the ACCC spent a lot of time focusing on the current waterfront debate and found considerable fault with various actions of the Maritime Union of Australia, while at the same time being extremely reluctant to focus his attention on the duopoly which exists between the two major stevedores and the anti-competitive arrangements which have been openly discussed in the public arena and in the courts.I find it interesting that here we have the government committing itself to a levy which it says will not be passed on to the consumer and that the two companies have agreed to absorb the $6 on cars and $12 on containers. The obvious question that gives rise to is: if they can absorb that, why have they not passed the equivalent amount on to the consumer already? If P&O can sit back and say, `No worries. We will just cough up $12 and we will not increase our prices', why then aren't their prices already $12 cheaper?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Monopoly pricing.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Monopoly pricing—exactly. Where is Professor Fels? I have not heard him on this issue. That is a fundamental point, and all of the examinations by the Productivity Commission and others on the waterfront raise issues of this nature, but this government is totally oblivious to them. It thinks that there is only one problem on the waterfront and that is the Maritime Union and its members.The next issue of implementation that we take objection to is the fact that the minister, Peter Reith, has not learned his lesson. He has said it publicly and it has been reported in the media. In effect, he is saying to the companies that are now in the hands of administrator, `You will only get access to these redundancy funds if you agree to employ non-union labour.' He has said that and been quoted in the media on a number of occasions. A 50-day deadline has been given to the administrators to reach agreement, to reach a conclusion, on these issues. This entails effective discrimination against people who are union members, because he is seeking to impose people onto these companies on the basis that they are not members of a union.Of course, the fundamental objection on the part of the opposition to what is occurring is that this is a core component of a grand conspiracy between the government, Chris Corrigan and Patrick Stevedoring, with the NFF playing a role, that is designed to sack 2,000 Australian workers and replace them with other people. That is the opposition's fundamental objection.The point to this exercise is straight forward. On 27 February 1997 a waterfront paper prepared by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business was provided. This paper advised the sacking of the entire existing work force and its replacement. Subsequently, this paper was endorsed by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). As a result of the endorsement of the strategy placed in that paper, Dr Stephen Webster was appointed on 30 July as the person to implement that strategy in effect.In September the process started. Chris Corrigan restructured Patrick's in order to separate his liabilities to his employees from his assets. That set one component of strategy in place. Then in December the Dubai exercise kicked off and two days later a letter was sent to Chris Corrigan from the government saying, `We are prepared to fund redundancies.' In January, because the Dubai exercise got into trouble, the fall-back position started which was the NFF taking over part of Corrigan's operation at Web Dock and starting to train people, bringing on board with some degree of difficulty—which I will get to in a minute—some of the Dubai trainees. Then there were the mass dismissals in April and within hours of those dismissals this legislation was introduced into the parliament by the minister.In effect, those people were sacked by Peter Reith. That is the reality. Peter Reith was a co-conspirator, and there was no misunderstanding the grey, ashen look on his face on the TV after the decision of the Federal Court was announced that there is a prima facie case against him, Mr Corrigan and Patrick's with respect to unlawful conspiracy. He and the Prime Minister have been at the centre of this exercise from the outset. They initiated the mass sacking strategy. They thought it up, initiated it and created Dr Webster's role as the organiser. He was the one to do the dirty work, along with Patrick's.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Prime Minister were able to keep their distance. They endorsed the basic strategy and then said, `Go away. Do not tell us the fine detail of what you are doing. Go away. You sort it all out.' What that meant was that when the Dubai scam was raised they could say, `We don't know anything about Dubai—never heard of it.'DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Where is it?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—`Don't even know where it is.' They set in train the core strategy of which Dubai was a key component. The deniability wall was built in in a fairly straight forward way, which meant that Michael Wells, Peter Kilfoyle and Chris Corrigan were all out there doing their dirty work. Now they are all in big trouble—as the bust-up between Wells and Kilfoyle on the one hand and Corrigan on the other demonstrates—and the government has abandoned them. The government is just saying, `Okay. Sorry that didn't go very well. Sorry that you've got a whole lot of people who are now in difficulties.' They had three-year contracts that look like they are not going to be fulfilled.Bit by bit the information is coming out. Slowly but surely, the pieces of the puzzle are being put together. The circle around the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business is gradually shrinking. He will end up in the dock in a court—as he already is—and found to be the person who orchestrated this whole exercise from day one.Consider very simply the minute from Darren Gillespie on 10 March last year stating that there is in contemplation the strategy to dismiss the entire work force. Consider the fact that Stephen Webster was appointed as a government consultant on the very day that he contacted Mike Wells and said, `I need you to contact Chris Corrigan.' Consider the fact that we have subsequent contacts on the record between Webster and Mike Wells which at first he denied and then alleged were all part of finding a chauffeur for Dick Pratt. Then Chris Corrigan starts his elaborate corporate restructuring process in September, and within days of Dubai starting the government offers redundancy support.Let us ask ourselves: if Mike Wells did not make his contact with Chris Corrigan via Stephen Webster, how did he make it? Who did bring them together? Who was the catalyst? If there was another catalyst and it was not Stephen Webster, why is he saying that it is Stephen Webster? Where is the angle in it for him? The answer is that clearly Wells is telling the truth. If he was just in a mood to bucket the government and to tell a whole lot of lies to really put the government in it, surely he would have said far more than, `I had a meeting with Stephen Webster, and he said a couple of things, and then I had a couple of phone calls.' If Wells's motive was to drag the government down by telling lies, I suspect you would have a lot more colourful and a lot more extensive statements than what you have.I would like to quote a couple of references from the transcript of the meeting of 31 January 1998 between Mr Corrigan, Bill Clayton from Patrick's, Wells and Kilfoyle because I think they give us an interesting indication of the skulduggery, the mendacity and the duplicity that has been involved in this exercise from day one. The transcript reads:Corrigan I'm going to go out of here tomorrow, we reach an agreement today, I'm going to go over there with all the list. I'm going to the bloody Farmers and say to them these blokes will get jobs, everyone of them that we give them. Now if they interview some bloke and he is absolutely unacceptable, I can't deliver totally. But I can assure you, that they will get fixed. But we can't tell them that! If one of these blokes, that we haven't yet identified is the leak, gets on the bloody radio or goes to Coombs or whoever and says `I've been told if I go here I will get a job', then none of them will get jobs. The minute this thing arises, the minute this thing arises, the Farmers are going to say `We want nothing to do with them' because they can't afford to. It has to be very delicately handled.Kilfoyle Well given the sensitivity I wouldn't be just sending them a letter, we should see them first and explain to them, without telling them so much. If I just got a letter I'd say `What the—expletive deleted— is this' and read all sorts of things into it, with all the—expletive deleted— that's been going on.Corrigan I agree with you. The reason for the letters . . . Kilfoyle Illegal at that . . .Corrigan No, no. Well partly illegal. But more to the point, if they leak the letter, if we've got two things possible for us—one is, that the letter sets out clearly the fact that it's over, rather than you know, you've got a job. And secondly, the letter may identify who the leak is. It may not too, because the newspaper that published the letter might well re- typeset it so we don't know who it was . . .. . . . . . . . .Corrigan Two months pay, they can come down and get trained, they can have a look whether there's a full job around or not. We can't do any more than that. But we can't tell them obviously what the big grand plan is—the government says there is no grand plan—on the basis that the Farmers are successfully starting up something and when the Union falls over there is going to be jobs around, elsewhere as well.. . . . . . . . .Kilfoyle If you get rid of the bastards, they'd talk like—expletive deleted— Not that they'd talk that much, they don't know anything. But the media hype that would come with it, two Fynwest guys sacked without a job, Jesus Christ, all of this would just fall by the wayside.Corrigan That wouldn't be altogether bad, if that was the case, it's a question of what else they'd say, what other stuff they might make up. Let me ask you, you say they are all close knit, to what extent? Let's suppose one of them is a mole still, we don't know which one do we? Is he going to say . . . Kilfoyle If they can prove it's him, they'd bloody well kill him!Corrigan No, no, that's not the question—I am relieved about that— The question is if they all know that they've all been . . . if the mole is still in there . . .Then they name the two people they suspect: a John Nealy and a Jeff Domin. Then there is discussion about Phil Duncan, who is described as a good worker. The transcript further reads:Wells I don't think he's a leak somehow, he's a drunk and everything else.Corrigan Other than that, he's a good bloke!Wells Now that hasn't eventuated they're up—expletive deleted— creek without a paddle, and despite these opportunities, my concern is there could be some action for breach of contract. The other thing is something for you to consider, if there is some way between what we are talking about here, of saying okay, it's finished, it's no fault of ours whatever, but looking at a year's payout—we couldn't do the three years, but . . .Corrigan Mike, you've got to be joking!Therein lies the story of the fallout.Kilfoyle That's what I'm saying to you Chris. We'll give them either a phone number or a letter, I don't care, a communication with this person here. They will then ring him up, write to him, he will accept them. They will then ring us and say they have been accepted by the new Farmers, thanks very much for the tip. It's been a good day, we've had a holiday, we've done this, we've done that. We're done, off you go. That way he is then sending us a letter saying he is resigning. If the press get a hold of it, what's the problem. Where's the tie, where's the trail, there is nothing.Corrigan and Wells then commented on the issue of serving military personnel being involved. The transcript reads:Corrigan How are we going to handle these serving Officers, because they will have to present to the Farmers . . . Wells A formal discharge. They've already been told that. Now I've had calls, I've got a guy for instance who is very good, Mick Cross, his time is the 7th February where he has to give notice or otherwise or discharge, that could take a couple of months to be effective, so there's a number of blokes in that position and they were told that they would not be looked at unless they are discharged. There's not a great deal of them, because a lot of them applied for discharge before they went. It was just that they didn't have time to process it.Then there was the problem of Four Corners being on the trail. It continues:Corrigan The other thing is, I need to be able to say that our arrangements with CTMS are finished, because with 4 Corners coming out on Monday, if they've got unassailable evidence of our links. They have evidence for sure of our equipment being in Dubai.Wells Yes, but I've got a lease agreement from your company to lease them, and I have a Dubai Port Authority agreement as well. Corrigan All I am saying to you is as a practical matter, if the evidence is strong, we don't know what they have got. We know they know we have equipment there for sure. They might even have shipping documents, I suspect they have got shipping documents.. . . . . . . . .Corrigan The next question, Mike, is, okay, were you the financiers?Wells Okay, there is no way they can find out unless you `fess up.Corrigan Yes, I know, but I cannot say no.Wells Why?Corrigan Because of the next stages, I have to have credibility. If I tell a blatant lie and I really know what the answer is, and down the track something emerges, then my credibility is shot and then the next phases won't work.Wells But you have already said you weren't involved.Corrigan I've hedged around and in more recent times I have hedged deliberately so in fact there is a trail now that says I've been equivocal. That might sound subtly different but it is actually important in this sphere. I'm not protecting myself, I'm protecting the overall scheme. But in the end game it may be that I have some credibility anyway, so I can't just come out and totally deny it. So it may be, depending on how it emerges, it may be that I have to `fess up. If I `fess up, I certainly am going to say that I did not know that these people were serving military people, and I most certainly would say that I wouldn't have done it that way had I known.. . . . . . . . .Kilfoyle That's because there was no credible person, as far as a press person to bloody handle it. If that would have happened and we had another week in Dubai, we would have had these guys right.Corrigan I know that. We made that mistake and at the end of the day it was structurally a disaster. Remember why we made the mistake, because we thought we were able to keep it a secret. And we didn't. If we thought it through clearly enough, we would have said to ourselves, we'd never keep this a secret. We have to . . . . the structure that allows us to be credible.That is just a sample of the transcript of that meeting of 31 January between Mr Corrigan, Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle, which illustrates the extraordinary secrecy, manipulation, skulduggery and mendacity behind this whole exercise. Here you have Mr Corrigan more or less admitting that he has been telling lies publicly about what has been going on. There is a clear misinformation strategy in place—and they are discussing how this should be handled and what sort of position should be put forward in public. What is abundantly clear from the other evidence that is put forward in the affidavit by Mike Wells is that the government is involved. These people who are there at the table discussing these issues were brought together by Stephen Webster. The process that we see unfolding through that transcript—the discussion about a secret plot to sack 2,000 Australian workers and to replace them with soldiers who have been trained overseas, the discussion about the misinformation and the lies to be fed to the Australian people—is all happening for one reason: it was put together, orchestrated and initiated on behalf of the Howard government by Dr Stephen Webster. The strategy to sack people was endorsed prior to Webster's appointment by the Prime Minister, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.Our fundamental objection to this legislation is that it is a central component of an overall strategy which we believe is an unlawful conspiracy and which has already been found by the Federal Court to be prima facie an unlawful conspiracy. We believe it is highly likely to be found, at the conclusion of those proceedings, to be an unlawful conspiracy. At that point, Peter Reith has a big, big problem.In conclusion, I ask him again today if he has an indemnity or is he seeking an indemnity for any personal liability from the government. He has not yet answered that question. I can fully understand why he has not answered that question but, at some point, he has to answer it.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.Miscellaneous3164Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 announced.Bills3164r518Billsr516Bills3164Debate resumed.13:05:003164Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I am delighted to rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 . Before I commence my remarks, I would like to welcome to this House of Representatives and to Australia my sister, Carrollyn Cox, and her husband—my brother-in-law—Mr Leslie Cox, from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Members and senators have made them feel most welcome in this, their first visit to the great Commonwealth of Australia.On 10 April this year, the Sydney Morning Herald, amongst other things, in an editorial, said:The forces of change on the waterfront are not directed against unions and unionists. They are against waste, greed and inefficiency. They are for the good of all Australians. And they are unstoppable.In his contribution to this debate, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) missed the whole point. He spent a lot of time talking about conspiracy and a great deal of time reading some supposed transcripts. He made all sorts of wild allegations which he cannot prove and which really ought to be the subject of a substantive motion, not part of a general debate on legislation in this place. He neglected to talk about why we want these bills passed. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) said in his second reading speech:On the waterfront, the government has reached an agreement where there are two major stevedoring employers, Patrick and P&O Ports, to adopt seven key performance benchmarks as the basis for continuing improvement.These include, in short language, an end to overmanning and restrictive work practices, higher productivity, greater reliability, improved safety, lower costs, more effective use of technology, and improved training. I would think that any sensible individual would have thought that those were highly desirable objectives.The member for Melbourne used some colourful language: bribe, conspiracy, unlawful, vilify, skulduggery and complicity. That is a range of adjectives and adverbs, isn't it? But they do not get to the heart of the matter, which is simply that the waterfront is Australia's gateway for goods and services. We need an efficient waterfront. For far too long, Australians have put up with excessive costs for transporting goods from other countries to Australia and from Australia to other countries. We are in a highly competitive international marketplace and we must compete if we are to survive. If we want jobs—and we desperately want jobs for Australians—then we have to be efficient, we must be productive and we have got to be able to compete in the open market with everybody that is out there.This issue has been around for a long time. On 30 May 1995 we were talking about the WIRA process and whether or not it had done any good, and it is my view that the process failed. All it did was to concentrate union power in the hands of one union, the MUA, and give them monopoly rents not enjoyed by the rest of Australians in their workplaces. On that day in May I made a contribution in this place on waterfront reform, which is something I have spoken about a number of times. We were talking about BAAC, a new waterfront employer in Western Australia which did not last very long. It is interesting that in the West Australian on 22 May 1995 John Coombs was reported to have said:. . . the union would not allow non-union labour on Fremantle wharves or any other wharf in Australia. That was in 1995. Three years later he is still saying the same thing: you cannot work on the wharves if you do not have a ticket. No ticket, no start, no job. Coombs went on to say:Here we have a situation which is straight-out industrial warfare because we have legal coverage and it appears to me that what this individual—Mr Buckeridge—is seeking to do is replace that right of ours with non-union labour . . . He went on to say:We're not going to allow a non-union operation to start up in this country and threaten the stability of employment of our members and I'll do whatever is necessary to stop it.That is a great performance, isn't it? What are we all about? If Australians want jobs, we have to be able to be flexible. I have had heaps of people in my electorate come to me and say, `Bob, I do not understand how, in this day and age, the wharfies can get away with monopoly powers on the waterfront. I do not understand that, because I have had to restructure in my job. In order to keep my income coming, I have had to learn to work harder, faster, smarter and longer hours. I understand that that is because we are under pressure from international competition. We have to be able to compete. I understand that. I do not like working longer and I would rather I did not have to work harder, but I accept it. So what about the wharfies? Why don't they have to do the same thing?'The Productivity Commission brought down two reports at the end of April relating to the waterfront. The Productivity Commission stated:Flexible work arrangements are especially important for Australian stevedores, given the variable demand for their services. The Commission found that despite some improvements in recent years, container stevedoring in Australia is characterised by a system of complex, inflexible and prescriptive work arrangements which constrain workplace performance.Amongst various work arrangements examined, three were identified as being of particular concern:the `order of the pick', which prescribes the order in which permanent, supplementary and other categories of employees must be engaged for a shift;relatively high shift premiums and penalties; andhigh redundancy provisions.It further stated:The Commission noted the Workplace Relations Act facilitates change to work arrangements. Greater competition in container stevedoring would increase the pressure on management and employees to change work arrangements and improve performance on the waterfront.I can tell you that we certainly need improved performance on the waterfront.The Industrial Relations Commission is currently engaged in award simplification, but I wonder what will happen when they get to the waterfront award. It seems to me that the system, with its various rorts and inefficiencies, overpricing and arrangements which allow people to have massive amounts of idle—which means no—work time and still be paid incredible rates of pay, has to be restructured. But the chances of getting real reform on the waterfront are non-existent if the MUA continues its monopoly over labour. If we cannot have Australian workplace agreements and certified agreements as well as the award with respect to the wharves, then other Australians do not have the opportunity to show that they could work harder, smarter or faster. And that is what this is all about.Yesterday the minister read newspaper articles about some of the incredible rates of container handling that were achieved by brand-new, just-trained workers on the waterfront who were not members of a union.BI4MILESMr Miles—With four weeks training.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—Absolutely; very quick. It is amazing that people who have worked there for years and years and earn up to $100,000 a year cannot achieve the same productivity as a brand-new employee with four weeks training. I am afraid I fail to understand that.Freedom of association is what this issue is all about, and it is an issue for which I have argued strongly for many years. As I recall, in 1990 I issued a private member's bill for freedom of association—freedom of membership: the right to belong or not to belong. Those principles are enshrined today in the Workplace Relations Act. Thank goodness for that. We have waited too long, while that mob over there agrees with compulsory union membership because it feeds the coffers for their election campaigns.Without the wharfies or other unions feeding their election coffers, they would be in deep trouble trying to fund an election campaign. So they will not break their tie. They are not like Tony Blair in England. They have not broken their tie with the unions, nor will they break their tie with the unions. This mob is under the control of Bill Kelty, and they listen to John Coombs because he represents to them the pinnacle: this is the oracle from which all good words come forth. That gives them heart that some day they can reunionise the entire work force in Australia, notwithstanding the fact that union membership rates are still falling.On the issue of freedom of association, the Australian, in an editorial on 9 April said, amongst other things:Much of the blame for this confrontation rests with the MUA, which for years has refused to give up its Labor monopoly—the closed shop. It has refused to recognise that efficiencies helping the economy would also help its members. . . Waterfront reform is essential if Australia is to take its place at the forefront of the international community. Being world competitive means nothing if the cost of exports, and their timely delivery, are inflated by poor productivity in container terminals.Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a worthwhile bill. This bill will help the stevedoring companies rationalise their work forces, reduce the shocking overmanning levels and allow some non-union labour onto our wharves. I commend the bill to the House.13:16:003166McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) to the motion for the second reading of this bill. It is very important that we address the core questions that are raised in the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne because at its heart this is a bill to fund a corporate scam. This is a bill to provide the financial resources to enable a corporate scam to be undertaken which, its perpetrator says, is partly illegal. I think he is too modest; I think it is absolutely illegal. But at the very least, the person who undertook this scam said it is partly illegal. But the government says, `That does not matter. It suits our political agenda. We will provide $250 million to fund it.'What a breathtaking situation! Around Australia, we have thousands of employees dismissed, some with no dishonourable conduct by their employer—simply the result of ill fortune—and some as a result of similar corporate scams in the mining and meat industries. And there is not one cent of government money to assist those workers who have lost their legitimate entitlements. These are people out of work today owed millions of dollars by their employer. They have been into the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who gave them sympathy.What we have here is a bill with regard to the people who have jobs and who, if there had been no corporate scam, would still be being paid to carry out those jobs, but to fund their redundancies, so-called, when, for at least a large number of them, they are not redundant, they are not surplus to requirements—BI4MILESMr Miles—Some of them are.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Negotiations may establish some small proportion are, but not 1,400. The parliamentary secretary at the table interjects that some of them are; a whole lot are. That is a justification apparently for sacking the lot. It is nearly as bad as the Prime Minister saying they were all sacked because they were part of the same union. The parliamentary secretary is supposed to represent some of these people—constituents of his—but when I went down to see them, he was absent without leave. He will not represent their interests. I say to the workers of Burnie, `If you are in trouble, whoever you are, if you work in Burnie, don't come to see your local member for support. He will not be there for you. You might pay your taxes. He might represent you in the parliament. But he does not represent your interests.' That is a factor that every working person in your electorate should know, and we will tell them.Those people from Cobar came to see the Prime Minister—and they got not one dollar. What have they done wrong? They are in a union; that might be their problem. They got not one dollar—nothing but a bit of sympathy—and were sent back out in the rain. At least the parliamentary secretary had the decency to admit that we all agree that some of these people are not redundant, that somewhere between 700 and 1,200 are not redundant. They are being given the shove to be replaced by others. That is why the redundancies are being funded for those people—so that a corporate scam planned in detail by this government (and you can follow the trail) can be implemented.Let us follow that trail. We do not have access to all of the documents, Mr Deputy Speaker, or we could give it in chapter and verse. The government will not release the documents, notwithstanding two Senate resolutions requiring them to do so, because they know the scam would be even more revealing. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent on its planning in writing reports and funding consultants, including the Liberal Party's market research agency to provide a bit of a brief to the minister and the Liberal Party's communications adviser to provide a brief to the minister so he would have the taxpayers' money funding him so he would know how to blackguard other Australians. What we do know—the few bits that have emerged from the government's cloak of secrecy—indicates the elements of a conspiracy sufficiently.We have a minute dated 10 March from an officer in the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business to him saying:You are going to be meeting with the stevedores, including Patricks, in a couple of days. They probably haven't thought of this, so we suggest you raise with them the idea that they sack all their employees and work out a way to do it very quickly and replace them with another work force so that they will not have the right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission.Lo and behold, events start to develop exactly in accordance with that minute. The government meets with Mr Corrigan of Patrick's. He will not tell us what was said, but in September we find the culmination of what we are aware of as stage 1—it may not be stage 1; there will be some stages we have probably missed—which is the corporate restructuring: sending the workers' entitlements to the bottom of the harbour, the legal and moral equivalent of the bottom of the harbour scheme which flourished when the current Prime Minister was Treasurer.But the difference here is that the government is conniving in the bottom of the harbour scheme. It is not being done over the government's too weak resistance as was the case when the current Prime Minister was Treasurer. He was beseeched by the Taxation Office to do something about this tax avoidance but would do nothing. But at least the government knew that it was wrong and was not participating. Here they are actually funding it—and this is a bill to provide the money to allow it to happen.What happens next? We find what is stage 2 on the public record—although there is not the slightest doubt that there are several stages in between—which is that the government continues to meet with Patrick's and they are discussing proposals to dismiss all their employees. The people of Australia are expected to believe that they never discussed how they were going to be replaced, that they had long and detailed discussions about how everyone was going to go—there would be no current employees left—but that nobody talked about who would replace them, where they would come from or how they would be trained. That was going to happen by magic. Nobody was talking about that indispensable second half which is in the minute of 10 March.On 1 December, when Mr Reith's representatives met with Patrick's, we are expected to believe that two days before the Patrick's funded mercenaries went to Dubai and four days before the government wrote to the stevedores offering to establish a redundancy scheme—these things happening within two days of each other and within four days of a meeting between the minister's representatives and Patrick's—they did not discuss either of those two completely unrelated events. So the conspiracy unfolds, the Dubai scam collapses, and we have in place the plan revealed in the transcript and notes and affidavits of the participants to replace the work force on 30 March 1998. It was a week out—they all got sacked on 7 April—but the plan was to get rid of them all on 30 March. So we had the plan in place to sack them all, and the replacement plan has collapsed.Suddenly we get the minister involved in discussions with the people who were involved in the second replacement plan, the NFF, which purported to be and pretended for a little while that they were proposing to set up a stevedoring company. We had trumpeted in this place, `We welcome this, this is competition.' Not one ship are they interested in stevedoring. They are interested in training labour and hiring it to the existing duopoly. They say to the farmers, `We're about creating competition on the waterfront and so we'll use your money,' but they are actually wanting to contract labour to the existing cosy duopoly.When there was a proposal for competition in the port of Melbourne from OOCL, Patrick's—this great voice for competition—went to court to try to keep them off. They succeeded with the collusion of the federal and Victorian governments in driving OOCL out of the port of Melbourne because they committed the cardinal sin: they came to an agreement with the union. They could not constitute the competition—you know that is true—which the Victorian and federal governments wanted so they were driven out. Fortunately, they will open in Sydney and they will be a competitive stevedore, and that is good. Sealand, which also has an agreement with the union, will open as a competitive stevedore in Brisbane, and that is good. We want more of that competition. We want to break up the cosy duopoly. We want to get a more efficient waterfront. That much we all agree on. But, to these people who are great advocates of competition, what happened in Dampier when there was a state government initiative to establish a monopoly? They supported it on the absurd proposition that there is competition from Dampier in Port Hedland. Maybe if you sit in Melbourne that makes sense, but if you have ever been to Dampier it doesn't. Take a container off in Port Hedland and you have got to drive it for a day to get it to Dampier. You might as well say that Sydney is competitive with Auckland. It is just not credible; it is an absolute farce. It is simply that the monopolist in Dampier was going to be non-union, they hope. The company that was operating there which was driven off—P&O—did not say, `Drive the new person off.' They said, `Let us both compete; let us both on there; let us have some competition.' `Oh no, one of you might have union members, we cannot allow that.' So they had a monopoly. This is their advocacy of competition.The scam continues beyond the Webb Dock intrusion of the NFF for training purposes, with some interesting Competition and Consumer Commission inquiries you would have thought about the nature of the contracts into which they entered, but none of this could have happened without the government's collusion, and the evidence of the collusion is this bill, because this bill is designed to fund those redundancies which the companies should fund.In 1989 when the labour was employed on a pooled labour basis and there was no company to fund the redundancies—because there was no company employment—they said, `If we make the transition to company employment in future, we will fund the redundancies, we the employers.' Well, they seem to have had a change of heart. You cannot blame the companies. If the government walked up and offered them $250 million, not many companies would say no. But they actually promised they would not do this.As an interesting question of the most basic economics: if the companies can afford to pay the levy without passing on the cost to the customers, as they say they will, why cannot they afford to pay the redundancies? It is the same money. If they borrowed the money instead and paid it back, it would be the same as paying the levy.This is the way they can get around it and they can make their competitors pay. The stevedores who do not want to use the fund, the stevedores who say, `We are not looking for government to fund redundancies in our business,' have still got to pay. Patrick's is getting its competitors to fund the redundan cies that it should be paying for. No wonder Patrick thinks it is a pretty good deal. This bill ought to be called the Patrick Stevedores Beneficial Rort Bill! This bill is misnamed. It is the bill to fund a rort by Patrick's. That is all it is. It is a scandal.The amendment moved by the member for Melbourne illustrates the elements of the scandal, and I have referred to some of them. For example, the sweeping discretion which the minister has in the breathtaking clause in this bill which indicates how he should disburse the money does not ensure that he does not fund illegal sackings. The actions which the government is funding can be illegal yet they can still be funded by this bill. It says that if the sackings are in breach of the law, including the very law the minister responsible for our industrial relations has introduced, he can still fund them.The bill does not say that if there has been a scam by a corporation which is still viable and trading profitably, a scam by a corporation that has sent one of its subsidiaries to the bottom of the harbour but the rest of the corporation is still trading, if there has been a corporate scam like that, that the corporation responsible for the scam should pay the bill before the taxpayers do, or before its competitors do. Why should the taxpayers initially, and then the competitors of Patrick's, have to pay for this scam?It is an outrage. This is an incentive to rort. It is saying, `If you pull a rort then we will help you, and if you don't, we won't. If you behave ethically, if you employ your workers in accordance with the law, then you have to pay the levy but you do not get the benefit. However, if you have a rort then the money goes to you. We will give you that assurance in advance. We will prepare the bill before you announce the sackings because we can introduce the bill within hours. We can announce it within minutes of the sacking because we were right in there planning it with you.'To the extent there are bona fide redundancies on the waterfront, and there are some, they should be funded by employers. To the extent there is a case for government providing a guarantee that workers' entitlements should be paid, it is a national function. There are workers throughout Australia losing their entitlements, not just in the stevedoring industry where all the companies can afford to pay if it were not for the corporate scam. The miners at Cobar have got not one cent and they have done nothing wrong. They have been subjected to a similar scam and got not one cent.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—And the Woodlawn miners?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Neither have the Woodlawn miners got one cent. I do not blame the company there. It did not pull the same sort of stunt; it was just unlucky in the mine. But it is still true that you only have to drive one hour up the road to meet a lot of hardworking Australians who have got not one cent and no support out of this bill.Go around the meat industry. Look at all these people opposite who claim to represent rural and regional Australia. Go to the mining towns, go to the meat industry towns, and ask the people who have lost their jobs and their entitlements whether they think if there is a levy it ought to be just to fund a scam for stevedoring companies to sack waterside workers. If there is to be a levy based scheme it ought to be a national scheme. This bill ought to be condemned for its purpose and its genesis and the amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Melbourne, should be supported.13:36:003169McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I refute quite strongly the observations of the previous speaker, the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), about OOCL not getting an agreement in the Melbourne port. They were refused that agreement because they could not come to an accommodation with the MUA.Let me make the observation that that sets up yet another monopoly where the MUA have the powerful position to dominate that new player to the waterfront. I could also observe that he was critical of the current levy arrangements, but the previous Labor government, of which he was a senior member, were prepared to pay $430 million under the WIRA process brought about by levies to reduce the numbers of people in the waterfront labour force. Mr Tanner interjecting—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—They were happy with the principle, shadow minister, of reducing the numbers of people in the waterfront because of mechanisation and because of a quite dramatic change in the way in which work has been done, yet no similar reduction in the numbers of people. I concede the point about the lack of competition in the stevedoring component and that we do now have only two stevedores on most of the Australian ports. I think that is not a good thing. It does bring about the possibilities of duopolies and a lack of genuine competition. The real difficulty is to encourage other stevedores to take the risks, put their money forward, and compete on the waterfront with the overbearing, dominant and monopoly position of the MUA.The fundamental problem is compulsory unionism on the waterfront. I notice the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is in the chamber. He is well versed in these matters. His good friend Mr Coombs, the Secretary of the MUA, said on the public record that any members that he had spoken to who were not members of the MUA were encouraged and persuaded and told of the benefits of joining the MUA. Who in the Australian work force would believe that line that they were persuaded about the benefits? They were told that, if they did not join the MUA, they would not work on the waterfront. It was quite clear what the position was: that was the monopoly and dominant position of the MUA and that no other non-unionist was able to work on the waterfront.I have had experience in the shearing industry. A similar position arose in that industry of no ticket, no start. One could argue that the shearing employees were persuaded of the benefits of joining the AWU. But let me tell you, I have seen at first hand that the shed did not start until such time as everyone signed the ticket for the AWU, and then work proceeded. I have no doubt that that is the process down on the waterfront which the member for Throsby is very close to. He has been down there helping his comrades over the last couple of weeks.The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill, as members would know, is accompanying the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill as proof of the government's determination to promote greater competition on Australia's waterfront and improve productivity and reliability. The bill establishes the Maritime Industry Finance Company and it will establish a loan facility of $250 million which is very much the same as that which the previous government used to pay stevedoring employees their redundancy entitlements upon the restructuring of the Australian stevedoring companies. The taxpayer is not contributing. It is all those stevedoring companies who will gain the benefits from this restructure and the redirection of the fundamental work practices.The bill outlines the seven performance benchmarks on the waterfront that the government is determined to obtain so that that there be an end to overmanning. Even the member for Throsby and the shadow minister would understand that and they cannot argue with that. They cannot argue with the restrictive work practices. That is clearly documented in the Productivity Commission report and everyone who has been on the waterfront would understand. The greater reliability is a fundamental position. It is not so much the productivity, although we know that is very much down on the world scale, but the reliability.Any shipper will tell you that, if you come to an Australian port, you allow two or three days extra because anything might happen to you. There could be a strike, there could be a hold-up. The ship could be held up for another 12 hours while the union organise themselves or call a strike just to hold the show up. It is not only the unreliability. It is the perception amongst the world shipping lines that, if you go to Australia, it will not be reliable and, therefore, you do not go. Not only do we lack the international competitiveness in terms of productivity—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What a lot of rubbish!VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—That is right, shadow minister, you know that. You have been in the game, you understand that. People avoid coming to Australia because they know it is one of the worst waterfronts in the world. It is a long way from the major ports of Europe and, if you get stuck here for three or four days or a week or a month, you know it is very unhelpful to your profitability. Everyone who is an exporter in this country understands that the ports are an impediment to the final cost of their product in terms of making an export order—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Bulk grains.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I will deal with that in a minute, member for Throsby. The independent report quite clearly says that, apart from bulk grains, the charges were generally higher and the service performance was lower than from our trading partners. It is clearly documented in the Industry Commission report. It is interesting that with the bulk grains, which members opposite are quite keen to quote, generally speaking the union involved was the Australian Workers Union. The MUA had moved away from handling that and it was quite outrageous. I have been on the waterfront myself and seen five and 10 people handling the bulk grain operation which needed about two people. They continued those work practices until recent times, when the National Farmers Federation took them on in some of these bulk ports, so that the MUA was not in control of the bulk grain terminals. We saw quite an improvement in that area.As members in the parliament would realise, Australia being a trading nation is critically reliant on the waterfront. In value terms in 1995-96, 70 per cent of imports and 78 per cent of exports were transported by sea. That traditional understanding that the waterfront was vitally important to the farmers, to the exporters and the importers is supported by the factual data that 70 per cent comes in and out through Australian ports. The trade volume by money is about $60 billion.In tonnage terms, Australia imported nearly 50 million tonnes of cargo and exported 370 million tonnes of cargo by sea in 1995-96. We can see the vital importance of having the Australian waterfront efficient, having it working in a reliable manner and making sure about the monopoly of the MUA, who have a long 100-year tradition of work practices and attitudes that have grown up because of activities on the waterfront which I understand to be not helpful to those people who worked in very difficult conditions and manually hard for eight or nine hours a day.Let us review the position now with containers. What we have on the waterfront now in Australia is basically a movement by containers, which are lifted by cranes which do not require any manual effort. We should change the psychological attitudes and the approaches that the MUA have in overmanning in their work practices and the way in which they have tried to keep any non-union person away from the waterfront. That should be dramatically changed.We do not need 1,400 people working for Patrick's. The reliable estimate I have heard is that 400 or 500 people can complete the same job if they just work for a 40-hour week in a normal course of events.It is similar to the farmers who now have front-end loaders, and I see no great difference on the waterfront in the cranes that lift the containers from the ships onto the waterfront and vice versa and which lift the containers back onto road vehicles.So we have this tradition. We have the monopoly of the MUA and that is what the fundamental argument is about. The government have taken a strong stand. They wish to improve the waterfront; they wish to bring about a better set of industrial relations which will allow non-union labour to work on the waterfront, and members opposite cannot really complain about that. Why shouldn't non-union members, such as the NFF members, work on the waterfront? They have now brought about a position at Webb Dock in Victoria where non-union labour, after three or four weeks training, has been able to complete crane rates competitive with the MUA, which has had 10 years experience on the waterfront.I cannot see any valid argument why, in this particular workplace, non-union labour is excluded specifically and in every means possible. That is what the argument is about. It is about supporting a change in the government's industrial relations legislation which clearly states that non-union and union labour can work alongside one another in the workplace. But John Coombs and the MUA are going to absolutely every effort possible to ensure that that does not take place. They do not wish to work under management instructions. They wish to handle the manning levels. They will not allow anyone to improve productivity. They have the double-headers. They have all the rorts that have been identified in this parliament week after week and in the public domain and on the independent public record of the Productivity Commission report.Quite clearly, the productivity of the Australian waterfront is at the bottom end of the world average. There is absolutely no doubt about that. With the smallest amount of improvement by non-union labour, that would change dramatically overnight, and there is absolutely no doubt about that. But members opposite want to maintain the monopoly position; they want to maintain the position of Bill Kelty's MUA because they know that is the linchpin of unionism here in Australia. But let me assure them that in the next six months the monopoly position of the MUA will no longer be the case. The thing has changed on the waterfront. The National Farmers Federation and their President, Donald McGauchie, have brought about the change. They brought some new people onto the waterfront. They will work there in the longer term. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and change will take place, much to the upset of those members opposite because they are in a time warp. They remember the good old days of the 1950s when the MUA and the Waterside Workers Federation were the dominant feature of the trade union movement. That is no longer the case and I commend the bill.I commend the great work of the minister for industrial relations in carrying this argument to the parliament and to the Australian people, because change will take place. The Australian farmers, the exporters, will now get value for money, and those members of the MUA, in the longer run, will work alongside other Australians who will do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.13:48:003172Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner). History is littered with descriptions of famous disasters. The Armada is one and the Charge of the Light Brigade also springs to mind. But there has never been a military-like charge, planned over such a long period, with such minute attention to detail and bankrolled with such enormous public resources, such as the Reith-led attack against the Maritime Union of Australia. Never before has such an attack failed so spectacularly. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has failed to realise his dream of destroying the MUA. He has spectacularly failed to use the waterfront as a boost to his leadership ambitions and he has failed to blunt the same ambitions of his Victorian nemesis, the Treasurer (Mr Costello).In his second reading speech just over a month ago, the minister said:Our government promised to fix up the waterfront—its rorts, its inefficiencies, and its archaic work practices.We, on this side, want to see an efficient waterfront, and in fact this is on the public record in Labor's platform endorsed recently at the national conference in Hobart.But what do we mean by an efficient waterfront? It is more than just about the actual workers or, to be more specific, more than just about members of the MUA. The waterfront is a whole complex issue. If we are to have reform, then management must be reformed, the paperwork flow must reform, delivery times must reform and the mishmash of working hours on the ports must reform. Each of the 16 or 17 parts that make up a port movement must be reformed. The whole chain from warehouse to wharf and from wharf to warehouse will have to be reformed. Each of the parties on the waterfront at the moment jealously guards their own bailiwick and everyone blames everyone else. All of them would be forced to reform, and only then can we talk about true waterfront reform—and we on this side would welcome that.It is far too simplistic to put all the blame on the MUA. The MUA and its members have, in many respects, been at the forefront of reform. They have reduced their numbers and are multiskilled. But those opposite argue, always from ignorance, that the blame rests with the MUA. It is worse than ignorance because they are misleading the Australian community into believing that the problems of the waterfront are the responsibility of only one actor on the waterfront. The member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), for example, spoke in this debate, but he spoke about the MUA and nothing else, and the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) was little better. But they concentrate solely on the MUA as if, in the whole mishmash of the waterfront, the only performer there was the MUA—and they know that it is a whole complex issue.If we are going to talk about reform, let us be honest about it and let us put all the cards on the table. Having said this, let us also stop this nonsense about picking out one major container port overseas such as Singapore, Rotterdam, or Antwerp, each of which I have visited, and comparing them with ports here. First of all, we do not have the same equipment here. Secondly, they are hub ports. A container vessel is emptied immediately in Singapore. They do not have to juggle containers as we so often do. They do not have to lift containers off one another to get at the actual container to be unloaded and then put all of the containers they took off back, as we do here in Australia. They do not have the double lift as we so often have. We also face the double lift not only from ship to shore but also while the containers are onshore.In the last four weeks of the waterfront dispute—indeed over the last two years—the minister has failed to fix anything. Instead, he has dragged his government into the murky depths of his own king-sized rort, revealed its own inefficiency and exposed its own archaic, pathological hatred of unionists and the organisations that represent them. Who will ever forget the friendly slap on the back by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) after the minister brought these bills—the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 —into this chamber?These bills are a slush fund, bankrolled by the taxpayer to get the government out of the mess that it alone has created. These bills are a pay-off by the minister to reward Patrick Stevedores for the murky, sneaky, shallow, underhanded way it has sacked its entire 2,000-strong work force, including 45 workers in my own electorate. We, in the Labor opposition, are more than happy to vote it down. We are not, in any way, going to support and endorse illegal mass sackings. We are not, in any way, going to support and endorse violating the rights of workers, their organisations and the law of the land. Voting for these bills in this place is a government escape clause—a redemption for its tightfisted involvement in conspiring with Patrick Stevedores, the National Farmers Federation and, of course, the players in the Dubai debacle.Commentator Terry McCrann, hardly noted for his sympathy to my side of politics, in an illuminating article in the Daily Telegraph of Friday, 24 April 1988, made the following valid point:. . . that Reith, personally and as the responsible Minister, not simply condoned and encouraged but actually participated in a process which now goes to trial . . . He did so by promoting the legislation to mandate the payment of redundancies to all Patrick wharfies.Terry McCrann continued:Without that legislation/promise, the Patrick play would not have been feasible . . . There is no redemption for this minister or any member of his government, including the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), who praised the mass sackings of workers in the region which together we represent in this place. On ABC Illawarra radio she repeated the outrageous allegations about wages and conditions and, when challenged by the wife of a wharfie, what did she do? She hung up! Throughout this dispute and for two long years prior to it, waterfront workers were slandered, abused, ridiculed and attacked on a daily basis by the minister and most of those opposite. It was all part of the strategy to demonise the waterfront workers and the MUA—to force through these disgraceful sackings and to carry along public opinion.All members of the government stuck rigidly to the script handed to them. The member for Forde (Mrs Elson) proved yesterday that she had the script but she just could not read it. You can go through the Hansard in this place for the last two years and find the repetition of the same old lines—the gross distortion, the myth making, the half-truth and the outright lie. The minister said: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 expectations.For $1.3 million of taxpayers' money, the mates of the Liberal Party establishment came up with that line. They were confident that they had the community measure when they forced people in focus groups to watch the 60 Minutes program. Did they ever ask how the phrase `employment practices in line with community expectations' sat with the appearance of hefty New Zealand and Pacific Islander security guards—once they were warriors; now they are scabs—decked out in black in the dead of night with savage half-starved dogs, truncheons and mace spray locking out workers from their workplace? Underestimated, as usual, Australians knew exactly what this meant. If Patrick, the NFF and the government could do this to the wharfies, then only one question remained: who would be next? No-one was safe.Job security is what this dispute has been the focus of. At a time when Australian workers are at their most insecure, we have ministers boastfully confirming their essence of insecurity at the workplace. In the Senate on 8 April, the Leader of the Government, Senator Hill, boasted:. . . no one will be assured of keeping his or her job unless they are competitive, unless they perform at an internationally competitive level.This view was echoed within the business community by public remarks made by representatives of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in various media interviews. Mr Mark Patterson, for instance, said:The waterfront has been unwilling to do it, and if there are other sectors of the economy unwilling to do it, this is a lesson for them.Even yesterday, during question time, the Prime Minister was earnestly trying to convince Australians that this dispute was not aimed at hurting the MUA or its members. He and the minister for workplace relations as quick as a flash then began to repeat the demonising rhetoric they have pursued over the past two years. The Prime Minister, however, cannot escape from the harshness of his own words on A Current Affair on 9 April when asked by Ray Martin:If it was about productivity then why sack waterfront workers in Adelaide and productive ports?The answer from the Prime Minister was:Well, they are all part of the one union.There you are: if you are a member of the MUA, you are going to be sacked. These bills have nothing to do with waterfront reform, and the community well knows it. In the same way that the minister has demonised waterfront workers, he has also sought to portray the former Labor government as doing nothing to improve the waterfront.The minister, though, does give Labor some disguised credit in the second reading speech, saying:The performance of seaboard bulk cargo terminals is generally accepted as already being internationally competitive.He refers to ports like Port Kembla in my own electorate—a productive, efficient bulk handling terminal. Port Kembla handles $2 billion worth of steel, coal and grain product each year.The same waterfront workers and members of the same union slandered by the minister handle this product. Labor's reform process significantly improved our waterfront performance. Not one day was lost through industrial action and there was not one compulsory redundancy during the period of the much maligned Waterfront Industry Reform Authority process.Through patient, hard work and back breaking negotiation, Labor called in all of the waterfront parties and set about the task of reform. Labor did not just sit down with the MUA or the waterfront workers. All of the waterfront parties were involved. The reform results are quite impressive and, again, not one day was lost through industrial action.A smaller work force—reduced by 57 per cent; ship time lost through industrial disputes fell by 75 per cent; time lost through acci dents fell by 88 per cent; container crane rates increased by 50 per cent; bulk cargo labour productivity increased by 60 per cent; national average cost to stevedores of loading and unloading containers fell by 29 per cent; container stevedoring prices fell by 24 per cent; and vessel turnaround times improved—these are the waterfront improvements obtained by Labor.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 Notice317531753175Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it not the case that last night's statement was only stage 1 of the economic debate? Is it not true that the real budget will come down when you release your tax package, the centrepiece of which will be an anti-family GST? Will you explain to the Australian people—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—why you promised three years ago that they would never face such a tax, when you said:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future?3175Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want every member of the House and every person present in the gallery to mark an absolute first in Australian political history: this is the first question time after the delivery of a budget that the Leader of the Opposition has not asked his first question on the budget. It is a measure of the quality of the budget. Before I come further to the Leader of the Opposition, let me congratulate the Treasurer on the outstanding result that he achieved in bringing down this remarkable budget—a budget that has brought about the most historic fiscal turnaround in this country since World War II.A measure of the impact of the budget is not only this extraordinary non-question from the Leader of the Opposition, but also the fact that the Deputy Leader and the Leader of the Opposition could not even work out their line of attack on the budget in the media this morning. In the one breath, you had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition running around saying, `It's all been built on pain,' and then in another breath you had the Leader of the Opposition running around saying, `Oh no, they've been lucky.' He said, `It's been through no particular effort of their own.' You cannot have it both ways—you cannot be lucky while building it on pain. The reality is that this budget recovery has been built on honest to goodness hard work. This budget recovery has been built upon a plan that was laid down by my government when it came into office. Through the efforts of an able Treasurer, a dedicated finance minister and a disciplined group of people who have been determined to put the interests of the Australian community first, we have turned the infamous Beazley black hole of $10½ billion into a surplus of $2.7 billion.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question, apart from asking when we are going to see the centrepiece of his real budget, the anti-family GST, asked him to explain to the Australian people why he breached the promise he made shortly before the last election.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is answering the question in accordance with the standing orders.An honourable member interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—The honourable member wants me to say something about tax. Let me remind you that for the third year in a row there was no increase in income tax; for the third year in a row there was no increase in wholesale sales tax. What was that budget—1993?—with the l-a-w law? Remember that? You were the finance minister, if I remember correctly, who connived at telling the Australian public in 1993 that you would not put up taxation—and, as soon as you got back, you ripped it up on every front. You put up the sales tax, you put up the excise, you put up the income tax. We have kept the Australian people's taxation burden down. The improvement in our fiscal position, this heroic turnaround in Australia's finances, has been achieved in the only honest, enduring, decent way—and that is by reducing Commonwealth outlays. We have brought Commonwealth outlays down to those great levels that existed in the 1960s and early 1970s, before Gough Whitlam was allowed to run amok and wreck the finances of the Australian Commonwealth.I am proud of this budget. I believe that the Australian people have given it a very, very positive response. It is a fair budget, it is a budget that builds for the future and it is a budget that allows the Australian community to climb this enormous mountain of debt that we were left by the former Labor government. It gives to the next generation of the Australian community, the third millennium of the Australian community, the opportunity to start their existence in that millennium on a debt-free basis—and that is due entirely to the efforts of the coalition government and despite the spoiling tactics of that miserable crowd opposite.31763176Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the importance of having a Commonwealth budget back in the black? How does the government living within its means and delivering budget surpluses help to eliminate the debt racked up by the successive Labor treasurers? What are the benefits for Australians, including those in my electorate of Lilley, of lower government debt?3176Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Lilley for her question. Last night's budget, brought down for 1998-99, for the first time in eight years put Australia back in the black. What that means is that, in this year, the Commonwealth will not be borrowing and will not be adding to its debt. If the Commonwealth is not borrowing and the Commonwealth is not adding to its debt, if the Commonwealth is out of the market, that means that the Commonwealth is not pushing up interest rates against home buyers and against small business. Those who are living in the electorate of Lilley, as a result of two years of good government economic management, are now paying interest rates four per cent lower than they were when the Labor Party was in office. For the people of Lilley with an average mortgage, that means they are saving nearly $4,000 a year on their home mortgage. That is $4,000 a year to look after their children, and to pay for clothing, for food, and for improvements. That is $4,000 a year for the electors of Lilley that is not going in servicing the high interest rates of the Labor Party.For small business in Lilley, overdraft interest rates now of 7.7 per cent are the lowest in 33 years. If you want to compare the interest rates for small business in Lilley now with the interest rates for small business in Lilley when Labor was in power, they peaked at 20.5 per cent under Labor economic management.You do not produce surpluses out of thin air. Going back to 1991-92, for the last five years of the Keating-Beazley Labor administration—I want the House to listen to this—these were the outcomes: in 1991-92 the deficit was $11.5 billion; in 1992-93, $17 billion; 1993-94, $17.1 billion; in 1994-95—Beazley finance minister—deficit, $13.1 billion; and in 1995-96—Beazley finance minister and in control of the finances of Australia—deficit, $10,300 million for the year.A lot of Australians are going to ask themselves, `If the Commonwealth is now in the black, what do you do with the surplus?' The truth of the matter is that if you add up those deficits run by Keating-Beazley Labor they total $80 billion of debt. That $80 billion of debt does not go away. That $80 billion of debt has to be serviced by every Australian until the coalition can break the back of it and retire Labor's debt. The second leg of the journey, having got Australia into the black—meaning that we are not increasing the amount on the mortgage this year—is to start paying back the Keating-Beazley Labor mortgage to set up opportunities for Australians which they could never have had under the Labor Party.31773177Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm that the budget papers show that under his economic management we are looking at a current account deficit, which you said in opposition was `the first thing you'd fix', having virtually doubled in two years to $31 billion and a foreign debt having already increased by $26 billion since you parked your campaign debt truck and which is bound to increase further with the forecast blow-out in the current account deficit? How can you say that Australia is back in the black when your foreign debt scorecard is now so heavily in the red?3177Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The reason you can say the Australian government is back in the black is that we are producing a $2.7 billion surplus. What a surplus means is black; what a deficit means is red.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you will remember that the question was about not the surplus, not the public debt but the foreign debt. I think even the Treasurer understands that difference.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer's reply is entirely in accordance with the standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party did not produce a surplus for eight years, so for the benefit of explanation a surplus actually means $2.7 billion in the black. It means that we are not borrowing this year. But it does not mean that we have got rid of the $80,000 million you accrued. It does not mean that the $80,000 million that Keating-Beazley Labor put together magically disappeared. You ought to give yourselves credit for one thing: your legacy of debt will live for a decade. Give yourselves credit for that. We have got the government back in the black in 1998-99 and now we set out on the second leg of the journey to start getting rid of the Keating-Beazley Labor debt. For the people of Australia, the Keating-Beazley Labor debt of $80,000 million means this: we have to raise billions of dollars of taxes each year just to pay for their debt.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order again on relevance, Mr Speaker, can I draw your attention to the fact that the question was not about public debt but about foreign debt, which is now $222 billion and has risen $26 billion under his stewardship.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is responding to the question about debt but he should take note of the admonition within the question itself.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I want to make this point so that people understand it. What that means is that the Commonwealth this year will not be borrowing but will be repaying Keating-Beazley Labor debt. The Commonwealth government, which is led by good economic management, will actually be retiring debt in the forthcoming year.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: the Treasurer knows darn well that the level of public debt under the previous government was the lowest in the industrialised world. The problem is foreign debt and the question was about foreign debt.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order. The Treasurer has concluded his reply.Distinguished Visitors317710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Finnish Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Trade, Mr Ole Norrback. On behalf of all members of the House I extend to him and his party a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice317731773177Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer, who last night delivered for self-funded retirees in my electorate. Treasurer, have you heard reports that the budget deficit inherited by this government was the result of bad luck and that the surplus reported by you last night in the budget was the product of good luck? Treasurer, what is your response to these particular comments? 3178Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I did hear somebody on the radio this morning saying that he was just a victim of bad luck and I did hear him say that we were just the victim of good luck—and it was the failed finance minister of the Keating Labor government, the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. I was a bit surprised that he is now taking the line that it all revolves around luck because, Mr Speaker, don't you remember he was the one that said there was no deficit. He was the one that said on 1 February 1996, `We're operating in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future.' That is what he said. After the election he said the same thing: `This notion of an $8 billion hole is largely a fraud.' That is what he said on 17 April 1996. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not say that it did not exist. He went on Seven's Face to Face on 10 May 1998 and this exchange took place:Yes, but you also left us with a $10 billion deficit as a result.Evans: `Yeah, but it was a deficit that could and would have been corrected . . . 'ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—In the 14th year!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition said it did not exist; the deputy leader said it not only existed, it could have been corrected. Then we got to the question of who was responsible. Of course, that $10 billion deficit had nothing to do with the government! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on Lateline last night:You've got to have a reliable Treasury, and it was the Treasury forecast that let us down.So, first of all, it did not exist, then it did exist, then it was nothing to do with the government; it was the fault of the Treasury. But you will never guess who, according to the Leader of the Opposition, actually fixed it up. The people that fixed it up were the same people that mucked it up—the Treasury—because he said:`It's been a lucky government, through no particular effort of its own. The breaks, if you like, in Treasury estimates have fallen their way.There was no deficit, then there was a deficit. It was produced by the Treasury; it was fixed by the Treasury.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is exactly what happened.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Evans and Beazley—more twists than Chubby Checker, these two! And the one thing we say to the Labor Party—the Labor Party that said there was no deficit, then there was a deficit, then it was created by the Treasury and then it was fixed by the Treasury—is this: if you are going to make up stories, you have got to have a very good memory.31783178Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Chubby Checker's name was Ernest Evans, actually, so you can add that to your repertoire. My question is to the Treasurer again. How can you credibly claim that employment growth next year will increase from 1¼ to 1¾per cent when at the same time you are forecasting GDP growth to fall by three quarters of a per cent and are also forecasting private consumption and business investment, the two key underpinnings of that growth, to be falling as well?3178Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Those forecasts are continuing with job growth which is already in the pipeline and will continue.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have never seen people so unhappy when unemployment falls below eight per cent. The Labor Party were walking around saying, `Isn't this a terrible thing—unemployment has fallen in this country. Isn't that a terrible thing?' It is the lowest unemployment since 1990, since the Labor Party said, `That was the recession we had to have.' The Labor Party put Australia into recession. Your leader, your hero, said that was a recession we had to have. And loyally serving at his side was the man rising to his feet.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: he has been asked a highly specific question about one of the number of sections in their forecast over which more than the opposition has put a question mark. It was a very specific question, uncluttered by any prefaces or any other element to it. What we want to know is the basis of his calculation, and we want to hear it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. The minister's answer will be relevant to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, Mr Speaker, we have falling unemployment and jobs growth in the system and an unemployment rate now the lowest since the Labor Party engineered a recession—engineered by your hero, Paul Keating, who said this was the recession we had to have. And serving at his side as the employment minister, with an unemployment record of 11.3 per cent, was the man rising to his feet again.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it was a simple and direct question. A simple and direct question, despite his arrogant smart aleckry, requires a—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will raise his point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It requires a simple and direct answer, and we are not getting it.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Has he finished? Is that it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The answer is concluded.31793179Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—Can the Prime Minister inform the House how older Australians, particularly those in my electorate of Cowan, will benefit from the measures announced in last night's budget?3179Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say to the honourable member for Cowan that last night's budget was indeed a budget of very good news for all older Australians—not only in the electorate of Cowan but also in all the other electorates. I notice that my colleague the member for Lindsay and also my colleague the member for Herbert have both drawn my attention to very accurate and I think very perceptive reports in their local media regarding the benefits of last night's budget to older Australians.By far the most important but certainly not the only benefit was the decision of the government to extend the Commonwealth seniors health card to almost 250,000 self-funded retirees throughout Australia. This will provide the same pharmaceutical benefits that are now available to people on the pension to couples earning up to $67,000 a year of combined income or the single rate income of $40,000 a year. This card provides retirees with pharmaceuticals at the same concessional rate as pensioners, that is, $3.20 a script. I think the many thousands of self-funded retirees who may in fact be watching this broadcast today will recognise the benefit of that particular measure to them and to their families. There are other items of great benefit to older Australians. For example, there is $24 million for 30 new rural multipurpose services which will provide additional aged care places for older Australians living in regional and rural Australia. There is a free influenza vaccination for all people over the age of 65 years, and an increase in the Medicare rebate for non-bulk-billed GP visits as a result of the 100 per cent Medicare indexation in 1998-99.The budget also builds on other recently announced measures to assist older Australians, such as the staying at home package worth $280 million, $164 million for extending to war widows our guarantee to link the age pension to 25 per cent of earnings and $10 million for 200 more Medicare easy claim facilities in pharmacies not only in regional Australia but also in the fast growing outer metropolitan areas of Australia. That is a very popular measure. What that particular measure has done is for the first time ever to put Medicare claim facilities within the reach of people living in rural and regional parts of Australia. There are many country towns which for the first time, as a result of this measure, have access to a Medicare claim facility. It is indeed a very welcome measure.This comes on top of the decision I made the Monday after Anzac Day to extend the Gold Card benefit to an additional 50,000 veterans aged over 70 years who served in the Australian armed services in World War II and faced danger from hostile forces. The extension of that particular Gold Card honours the commitment we made to World War II diggers during the last election campaign. It is once again the delivery in full, and indeed ahead of time, of another commitment that I made on behalf of the coalition during the last election campaign.This has been a magnificent budget for self-funded retirees. It has been a magnificent budget for older Australians. It has been a magnificent budget for the future of Australia, and I know that the elderly of Australia will appreciate the real practical help and the real practical assistance rendered by my government through this very effective budget.31803180Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Do you recall saying in your budget speech last night that you would `provide a better environment for private saving'? How can you claim that when your own budget papers last night show a continuing deterioration in the household saving ratio, in private saving generally and in overall national saving?3180Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—One of the great things to encourage private saving—thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk about it—is that on 1 July this year the tax on private saving is going to be cut 7½ per cent. Thanks, Gareth. What that means is that, if you happen to be on the 20 per cent tax rate, from 1 July this year the tax rate in relation to the interest you earn or in relation to debentures you might have or in relation to any of your earnings on savings will come down to 12½ per cent; and from 1 July 1999, under this government's tax reduction program, it will come down 15 per cent. So, if you happen to have some money in the bank and you earn, say, interest of $1,000, instead of paying 20 per cent tax on that, by 1 July 1999 you will be paying five per cent—one-quarter of the 20 per cent tax rate. That is just one of the things that the government is doing to improve the climate for private saving, and I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for drawing attention to it.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was not what might improve the climate for private saving but why, if the climate is going to be improved, did you simultaneously forecast that it was going to come down. That is the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not raising a point of order. He will resume his seat.31803180West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Bowman has the call.XK6Mrs WEST—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, can you inform the House of the outcomes which Australians can expect in health as a result of the 1998 Howard government budget? How will Australian families benefit in the long term from the initiatives announced last night by the government?3180Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Last night's budget was a great budget for health, and it follows on the themes that we have been running over the past two years to underpin public policy with a strong scientific basis, to look at population health issues and preventive health issues and at the same time to try to address some chronic long-term problems in health that have been intractable in our system. On the first one, on science, the most exciting is that we have put the National Health and Medical Research Council's budget on a long-term footing. Unlike the previous government that in 1993 and 1994 offered greater funding for medical research, when we got into government we found that they had been quite dishonestly portrayed to the scientific community; it was time limited funding that dropped off. This would have meant that, had we stuck to Labor's forward estimates, the National Health and Medical Research Council would have been able to give no new scientific grants next financial year whatsoever.We have changed that and we have now got a $165 million research base indexed into the future, which in real terms is the highest the National Health and Medical Research Council has ever had. We have also made magnetic resonance imaging available through a Medicare rebate, but we have done it—unlike the introduction of CT scanning, which led to wild and out of control use of that modality—on a selected and limited basis, backed up by science and by the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council, in a way that will be of great benefit to the Australian public.In the area of prevention and population health we have the single biggest increase in public health funding the country has ever seen and it underpins our commitment to prevent illness and not just to treat illness once it happens. There is a variety of initiatives here on environmental health that will, particularly, look at water quality and water borne diseases such as hepatitis A and cryptosporidium; injury prevention; cancer control; the continuation of very successful anti-smoking initiatives; men's health initiatives; and a special vaccination program so that all Australians over 65 can receive free immunisation against influenza which we expect will save 1,000 lives a year. Many of these initiatives are not superficially popular. We have undertaken them because they are necessary, because they are correct, and because they will give a boost to prevention in a way this country has never seen before.We have addressed some chronic problems in health. We have substantially boosted Aboriginal health funding. We are making pneumococcal vaccine available to kids in Aboriginal communities where they are particularly at risk. We are funding azithromycin for treatment of trachoma, as the Prime Minister has previously announced. We are rebuilding some of the Aboriginal health infrastructure and we still have above that additional funds to help Aboriginal medical services over and above what was originally contemplated.Finally, in rural health, we are building on our successes of the past. We are building on the success of the four per cent increase last year of doctors in rural areas. We are going to expand 30 multipurpose centres around Australia—a very popular initiative that helps the survival of small country hospitals. We are increasing funding for rural work force agencies by 25 per cent to help to get more doctors into the bush. We are taking up the challenge put to us by overseas trained doc tors who said they would want to practise in rural areas if they could get registration, and allowing 100 doctors to go back to medical school on the condition that they go to rural areas when they finish. If all these 100 doctors go into rural areas in one go, it will fix 20 per cent of our problem with the work force in rural Australia.The honourable member asked how this will benefit families in the long term. It will benefit them simply by making a health system that is sustainable, that is fair, and that is built on a strong intellectual framework that values prevention as much as treatment. That is something that we have never had before.31813181Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Is the minister aware that there are two applications listed for hearing in the Federal Court between the 25th and the 28th of this month seeking to set aside the long-term operating plan currently governing the flight movements from Sydney airport and seriously alleging that the decision by the coalition government to not conduct an EIS was improperly made? Will the minister now move, without waiting for the court's finding, in a spirit of goodwill and equity and fairness to the one million people of Sydney—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I regret to advise the honourable gentleman that his question, as it is now framed, is sub judice. I suggest he have another look at it. He might be able to redraft it so that it is not so. As I understand it, it is before the courts.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Not until the 25th.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. After the date is set down, as I understand it, if any matter arises in this place which in any way might prejudice any of the litigants, it is considered to be sub judice and should not be canvassed. I would suggest that the honourable member consider the detail of his question. I shall call him if he believes he can adjust it so it is does not breach the sub judice rule. The honourable member for Lowe, can you adjust it?ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Yes, I can. Will the minister move, without waiting for a court finding, in a spirit of goodwill and equity and fairness to the one million people of Sydney who are aircraft noise affected, to do what should have been done in the first place and commission an urgent EIS?3182Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the concerns of the member for Lowe and a number of other members of the House with regard to the operations of Kingsford Smith airport in Sydney. One of our commitments at the 1996 election was to more fairly and equitably distribute aircraft noise around KSA, and it is being done. We are delivering on that commitment. It is something that the Labor Party was never able to do with Sydney airport with the indecision over the years on the operations of the airport. Our targets remain in place as far as the long-term operating plan is concerned. We aim to achieve those targets by the end of this year. We are about halfway through the implementation process.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question was specific in regard to environmental effects, not on flights over Sydney per se.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will take note of the concerns of the honourable member.SU5Mr VAILE—Mr Speaker, we are talking about the operations of Kingsford Smith airport in Sydney and all of its effects on the community. The government is well aware of that. We have taken action to change the operating mode of the airport to fairly distribute the aircraft noise and the impacts on the community in all the suburbs around the airport in Sydney. We are going to continue down this path. We believe that we are achieving the goals that we set out to achieve in terms of the targets, and the most important one of those targets is to get 55 per cent of movements moving over water—over Botany Bay—and we are well on the path to achieving that.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question was very, very specific. It asked the minister if he was going to consider doing an environmental assessment of flights over Sydney. It was not in regard to the number of flight movements.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will take note of the question and respond to it.SU5Mr VAILE—The government has implemented a policy that we laid out at the last election. We are going to continue to pursue that outcome until we achieve it.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Speaker, I repeat the point of order I raised earlier on. It was a specific question to the minister regarding the commissioning of an environmental assessment. He has not answered my question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. I think the minister has completed his answer.31823182Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Will the minister outline to the House how people living in the bush and regional Australia will benefit from the in-the-black budget handed down last night?3182Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note, as I am sure he has, that this budget has been extremely well received in rural and regional Australia. There is a fundamental reason for that.Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison will keep quiet.4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is well known in rural Australia that an absolute prerequisite for recovery in rural Australia is a set of national accounts that are in order. Everyone in the bush understands that and it is very widely welcomed. The fact of the matter is that our rural industries, whether farmers, whether miners or whether small businesses, were devastated by the sort of regime that was run for 13 years before we came to office. Very high interest rates, very high rates of inflation and a speculator driven currency did enormous damage to the fabric of rural Australia. That is now being turned around. The fact of the matter is that that is very widely understood, and our action is very widely respected and welcomed right across rural Australia. It lays the foundation for sustainable recovery, particularly for farmers who are price takers on global markets and who need, if they are to have any chance of surviving in the future, the permanent breaking of farm and general inflation.To come to some specific highlights, Agriculture—Advancing Australia, which is a $517 million package, will see this year an estimated $77 million for implementation of various initiatives, including $15 million for the new farm business improvement program, Farmbis, and $41 million for the farm family restart scheme. There are already hundreds of Australian farm families benefiting from that scheme. It was never previously available. In addition, there is $11.8 million for the rural communities program, with $5.1 million, for example, for the waiver of debts incurred under the old and very unsatisfactory Labor farm household support scheme.The introduction of a new, commercially operated farm management deposit scheme replaces the income equalisation deposit scheme at an estimated cost of $20 million. There is $148 million for rural research and development, including $126 million to match industry R&D levies, $11 million for land and water resources and $11 million for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. There is $112 million for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.This is a very good budget for rural Australia, but let me come to another one of very great significance and that is the Natural Heritage Trust. It will see, this year, an unprecedented $216 million for natural resource management and sustainable agriculture under the NHT and related programs, including a record $92 million for landcare, $38 million for the Murray-Darling Basin—never matched before—$18 million for river care, $10 million for the farm forestry program and $7 million for the national land and water resources audit.It is interesting to notice that those opposite are a bit sensitive about the NHT because they raised a bit of a smear campaign recently, claiming that it was not being run properly. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Auditor-General specifically asking that he compare the coalition government's running of the trust with, can you believe it, Labor's abysmal efforts with the sports rorts. He wanted them compared. The Auditor-General found that the decision making process was fundamentally sound in providing transparency and rigour, and that there was no evidence of systematic bias in the allocation of funds for projects. It completely clears the Minister for the Environment and me. What is more—and this is the interesting bit—the Auditor-General said that these findings contrasted with the findings, for example, of audit report No. 9 of 1993-94 on the community cultural recreation and sports facilities program.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. The question was about the budget and rural Australia; the answer is to do with the Auditor-General's report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister needs to have in mind the nature of the question, but I believe the remarks the minister is now making do relate very much to the expenditure of funds under programs being extended under the budget.4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is entirely relevant because this is a valuable budgeting program for rural Australia which you have opposed. When you could not stop it happening you tried to imply that it was being used in a corrupt way, and that is not what happened. The bottom line out of this is that, if he has any shred of decency about him, the Leader of the Opposition must now apologise to the regional and state assessment panels for the Natural Heritage Trust, whose reputations you have dragged through the mud. You ought to apologise to Landcare and other community groups around Australia for diverting government resources away from—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is entirely selective quoting of the Auditor-General's report, which I am afraid was not as leaked by yourselves.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is not a point of order. PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order relates to relevance, Mr Speaker. This was a specific set of questions directed by his own dorothy dixers to matters in the budget. We are now having a debate on the Auditor-General's report, which I think is probably still on the Notice Paper for deliberation, in which case I would ask you to bring him back to the budget.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has a valid concern. I suggest the minister returns to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I simply conclude by saying that he ought to also apologise to the member for Dunkley and he ought to provide a written apology to the Baillieu family.31843184Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm the statement in the budget papers that he has allocated $20 million for `new systems required to implement different collections introduced as a result of tax reform'? How can you accurately predict what resources you will need to implement your GST tax package unless you have actually decided what is in that package already? If you have decided, why don't you come clean with the Australian people and release your proposals now?3184Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—It is true, and I can confirm, that money has been allocated so that the tax department can continue to work on systems which will be necessary to improve Australia's taxation system. We stand for tax reform; we know the Labor Party does not, but it is necessary for Australia.31843184Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what opportunities the budget brings to young Australians? How does the budget expand opportunities and incentives for young people to undertake further education and training?3184Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Stirling for his question. This is an outstanding budget for the next generation of young Australians. The government is delivering on more opportunities in education, training and employment for young people in this country. By getting the budget back into surplus, we are now moving to lift the burden of debt on the next generation of young Australians imposed by the Keating-Beazley government. The government is delivering on its promise to deliver more education and training opportunities.Let me be specific about the benefits in this budget for young people: this year, there will be more fully-funded Commonwealth places for undergraduate students in universities than ever before—362,000 fully-funded government places, 10,000 more than in the last year of the Labor government; this year, the coalition is providing $296 million for 120,000 new apprenticeships—real jobs, not the mickey mouse training schemes of the Labor government; and this year there will be an extra 44,000 places in TAFE over last year. The total expenditure on vocational education and training will be some $1.4 billion—up $46 million over last year and up $190 million over the last year of the Labor government.These initiatives have been necessary because of the appalling failure of the previous Labor government to create opportunities for young people. In this morning's Australian, members of the House would have seen the report of the speech last week by the member for Sydney, Mr Peter Baldwin, headlined `Baldwin regrets Labor's past follies'. Of course, the Labor Party has tried to conceal the truth on this matter; they tried to gag Peter Baldwin last year, but he has said it again. Let me just quote what was said:A lack of coherent policy in the whole area of education and training, including the structural overhaul of the late 1980s—the Dawkins reforms—gave little thought to the implications for the vocational sector, Mr Baldwin said.MD4BALDWINMr Peter Baldwin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I had to say; it was not a prepared speech—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You can make a personal explanation at an appropriate time.MD4BALDWINMr Peter Baldwin—Yes, I will.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Baldwin, the member for Sydney, went on to say—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. If the member for Sydney has indicated his position has been misrepresented but is not allowed to state that misrepresentation now, why should the minister be able to get away with quoting what is alleged to be a misrepresentation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. As the member will note, the minister is reading, as I understand it, from a newspaper transcript of this morning; he is attributing to that newspaper comment whatever veracity the newspaper itself enjoys. I invite the minister to resume his answer.BT4Dr KEMP—This is the Australian , Mr Speaker. I quote:"For a period there we managed to get the message out,—says the member for Sydney—particularly to young school-leavers, that the only thing worth doing by way of further education and training was to go to university. . . "That was a very unfortunate perception . . . It is quite clear that the Labor Party abandoned the battlers in this country; they abandoned the 70 per cent of young people not going from school to university. This government in this budget has confirmed its commitment to these young people. More than that, the budget gives young people the right incentives to take charge of their future. The youth allowance funded in this budget encourages young people to stay in education and training instead of dropping out of school early and going on the dole. Some 70,000 students will be able to get rent assistance. Work for the dole has been a huge success and will be expanded in this budget. There will be some 100,000 places over the next four years.Let the Australian people note this fact: if the Labor Party were ever to return to power, they would abolish work for the dole. They have no commitment to this program, which has the support of communities around Australia, which has attracted the enthusiasm of thousands of young Australians and which is being remarkably successful in getting these young people jobs because employers are impressed by young people who are prepared to take charge of their own futures and make a commitment to this community. This is a budget based on fundamental values which the Australian people believe in. This budget implements these values as never before.31853185Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it true that for every one of the self-funded retirees who earn up to $67,000 and for whom you are making pharmaceuticals cheaper, there are 20 pensioners and health card holders who earn less than half that much who are being forced to pay more for their pharmaceuticals since your 1996 budget? Prime Minister, why have you turned your back on them?3185Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—He is going to oppose the measure, is he? The Leader of the Opposition has no credibility on this matter. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to support it or oppose it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: when the Prime Minister wants question time to be devoted to asking me questions, I will be in it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is that a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What I want to know is—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is nothing to do with a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I will go to relevance. He was asked a specific question about the pensioners who have missed out in this budget since 1996, and he is evading the answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Nothing will enable the Leader of the Opposition to escape the responsibility of saying right now to the self-funded retirees of Australia whether or not he is going to support the measure. Are you for it or are you against it?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not rise on a debating point. He may rise on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You bring him to order then.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are not rising other than on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Then I will go to a point of order on relevance. He will not answer that question and he should be made to. Twenty times as many pensioners than retirees' families are affected to their detriment.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Before I call the Prime Minister, the House will be silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition has now had almost three minutes to tell the self-funded retirees of Australia whether or not he is going to support this measure. Let me simply say to those 220,000 self-funded retirees who are listening, listen very carefully. We in the coalition are in favour of giving you an additional benefit. Might I also say to the pensioners of Australia that I lead the first government in Australia that by legislation fixed the pension rate to 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings. I lead the government of Australia that extended that benefit to war widows. I lead the government of Australia that has also given other benefits to the pensioners of Australia.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this question was specifically directed and exclusively directed to the substantial increase that pensioners experienced in the cost of their pharmaceuticals in the 1996 budget. They have been ignored and there are 20 times more of them than those who benefit from this particular decision.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question related to both the relativity of pensioners and self-funded retirees. As I understand the Prime Minister's response, he is now responding to that form.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a funny kind of ignoring a group of people in the Australian community when you are the first Prime Minister in Australian history to pass legislation that links the age pension to 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings. You had 13 years in government to do that, and you did not do it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the government is quiet. The Leader of the Opposition has raised several points of order. I trust this one is again pertinent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They have all been pertinent. This relates to pharmaceuticals. We are happy, Mr Prime Minister and Mr Speaker, to support the extension of the health card which we put in place. What we want to know is: will you reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals to the pensioners on whom you raised it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition can only raise a point of order, not argue the question. I call on the Prime Minister, who is entirely within the ambit of the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The answer in the words of the spokesman for the pensioners of Australia is that at a time of zero inflation they were very pleasantly surprised to get an increase of $5.80 a fortnight in the old age pension. That is the answer and it is an answer that the pensioners of Australia understand only too well. You lasted a half a question, you weakie.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will wait until he is called and he will not pursue an argument at this stage of the proceedings. If you have a point of order—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I go to relevance. They have evaded every single budget question we have asked—every one this question time. He is talking about 25 per cent of average weekly earnings—that is the pension adjustment put in place by the previous government. We are asking him about his increasing costs of pharmaceuticals to pensioners.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—All members of the opposition will be silent before I call the Leader of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—My point of order is an obvious one. We have had a series of points of order from the Leader of the Opposition which are simply disguised as obstructionistand disguised as debating points and which have had no relevance whatsoever. He should be warned for using points of order as a debating tactic.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat and so will the Leader of the Opposition. There is far too much noise in the House. It was quite impossible to hear the point of order which the Leader of the House just made but I understand the substance of it. The raising of points of order during question time is not an occasion to engage in debate. If the Leader of the Opposition objects to matters canvassed by the Prime Minister or any other minister in their reply, there are forms in this place which will accommodate a debate. That is not by raising points of order that are repeats of earlier points of order, accepting the very wide range that is traditionally used in this place by ministers in responding to questions.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a further point of order which goes to what was said by the Leader of the House—to which you responded—and to your ruling. Is it not true that in the standing orders there is a requirement for relevance and that Speakers in the past, including you, have in specific and tight questioning been asked on a point of relevance to bring a minister back to it? In circumstances like today, where every one of our budget questions has been evaded, you can see why it is necessary. Is it not true that there is that requirement for relevance in the standing orders which is available to everybody who happens to be asking a question in this parliament?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is correct in that there is a standing order, as we all know, relating to relevance. The interpretation and application of it has always been given considerable latitude. At the same time, I ask the Prime Minister, in responding, to direct his remarks specifically to the question put to him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The only thing I have to add is that the amount by which the pension was put up every fortnight was not $5.80 but $6.80. I sold the government short. I have nothing to add.31873187McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister inform the House what action the Howard government has taken to meet its election commitment to introduce a fairer system of air traffic services and charges?3187Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. In last night's budget, delivered by the Treasurer, we not only delivered on an election commitment but went beyond it. Last night we abolished a tax. I am pleased to announce that the Howard-Fischer government will be abolishing the Airservices Australia component of the unfair avgas tax. This means significant savings for farmers, small charter operators and other GA users in our regions. This means increased opportunities in regional Australia.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It must be apparent to you, because it is us, that he is clearly reading this. You have made a request that ministers should not read their answers. If they have a statement to make, they have the forms of the House to do it. I would ask you to enforce your own rulings, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will know that I was not giving a ruling; I was giving an admonition. I have suggested to ministers that they do not read their answers, but if it is necessary to do so from time to time it is understood.Mr Crean interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—Just the same as you stand there and read your questions for half an hour. General aviation users currently pay $17 million in these unfair taxes for services they do not necessarily use. A classic example is the agricultural operator who pays about $7,000 a year in these charges. By abolishing this tax, we are assisting operators in regional Australia. The government recognises that this tax is not fair and we have taken action, unlike Labor. What did Labor attempt to do? Labor attempted to increase this tax just prior to the last election—before Labor got voted out. Labor tried to increase this tax. We stopped them at the last election. They were beaten at the last election. Today we are abolishing this tax. In November 1995, Labor tried to increase this unfair tax by 1.5c a litre. If Labor had had their way, operators would have been paying $20 million a year in this tax. We stopped them. In government, we cut it, and now we have abolished it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To facilitate the proceedings of the House, we will accept incorporation of the answer in Hansard .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion. I point out that, as I recall, there have been many ministers of both persuasions who have used occasional extensive replies that have in fact been written. I call on the minister to conclude his reply.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—But you were going to change it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have suggested it should be changed, yes.SU5Mr VAILE—In conclusion, this goes to prove that the coalition government stands for abolishing taxes, for lower taxes, for lower interest rates, for lower inflation and for more employment. The Labor Party stand for higher taxes, protecting the current taxation system, high interest rates, high inflation and higher unemployment.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I ask that the document be tabled.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister, the Leader of the Opposition has asked that the document from which you have just been reading be tabled.SU5VAILEMr Vaile—It is confidential.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, it's confidential! You're joking!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can I suggest to the minister that, if he marks it confidential and then reads from it, it is a little hard to accept its confidentiality. I accept that it does have `Confidential' stamped on it, but I suggest to all ministers that if they read from a docu ment almost in its entirety and stamp it `Confidential' it is a little hard to accept that status.31883188Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. I ask the member for Dobell to repeat his introduction.MG4Mr LEE—Is the Prime Minister aware that the Treasurer misled the listeners of the Radio National program this morning—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Can you start again?MG4Mr LEE—For the third time. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Treasurer misled Radio National listeners this morning when he claimed that the Howard government had made `no cuts at all to public hospitals in the 1996 budget'?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Has the member for Dobell finished his question?MG4Mr LEE—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is a point of order on the question, but I think we will let you finish the question first.MG4Mr LEE—Mr Speaker, I thought your practice was not to allow points of order until the end of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will let you finish the question first.MG4Mr LEE—Is the Prime Minister also aware that Budget Paper No. 1 in the 1996 budget states on page 395 that your government directly cut federal funding for public hospitals by $300 million and states on page 3180 that your government cut $1.5 billion from federal funding to the states, which also funds public hospitals? Prime Minister, do you agree with the Treasurer's claims on Radio National this morning and, if so, is this shared fantasy the reason why your government provided not one extra dollar for public hospitals that was not on the table at the Premiers Conference two months ago?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Prime Minister, I have a point of order from the honourable member for Fisher.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I hesitate to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I was on my feet quite some time ago. My point of order relates to standing orders 75 and 144 which prohibit people from casting aspersions or making reflections on other members. The member for Dobell referred to the Treasurer misleading the people of Australia. That is a reflection, it is out of order and it ought to be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Fisher is very close to the standing orders in what he says. The question however was `is he misleading'. It did not finally state that he has misled, although there was a bit of implication there. I suggest that we allow the question and we invite the Prime Minister to respond.3189Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I did not hear the Treasurer on Radio National this morning—not that I would not normally want to listen to the Treasurer on Radio National, but I was talking on a rival program at the time it was going on. But, knowing the Treasurer as I do, I cannot believe that he would mislead the listeners of Radio National. I do not believe he would.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Hear, hear!ZD4Mr HOWARD—As the member for Dobell has asked me a question about public hospitals—and I thank the member for Dobell for asking me a question about public hospitals—it gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the fairness, the equity and the generosity of the health care funding offer made by the Commonwealth to the states at the last Premiers Conference. It also enables me to congratulate the Premier of Queensland on recognising that the interests of Queenslanders were served by signing the Medicare agreement.What the Premier of Queensland has recognised—which I regret to say at the moment some of the other premiers have not recognised—is that, by refusing to sign the Medicare agreement, they are lengthening the waiting lists for public hospital treatment in the other states. Rob Borbidge realised that by signing up he accelerated the waiting lists in the state of Queensland. As a result of the deal that has now been signed between the federal Minister for Health and Family Services and Mr Mike Horan, the Queensland Minister for Health, progress is being made on waiting lists in Queensland which is not being made in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.The Minister for Health in New South Wales, Dr Refshauge, is particularly ignorant of the way the Medicare agreement operates. When he came to the Premiers Conference he did not even understand the way in which veterans were being treated under the new arrangements under the health care agreement. When it was pointed out to him, he said, `Oh, I haven't settled. Thank you very much. I had no idea you'd put another $750 million in for veterans.' What I say to Andrew Refshauge, what I say to the health minister in Victoria and what I say to those other health ministers is: take a leaf out of the book of Borbidge and Horan. Look after the interests of people on the public hospital waiting lists. You look after their interests. You worry about the people of New South Wales.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Ah, we're a little sensitive to this, aren't we?MG4LEEMr Lee—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. This Prime Minister is being asked why he did not put one extra dollar into public hospitals in last night's budget. He has not got around to telling us that. Why didn't he put one extra dollar in?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There have been no cuts. What the Treasurer has said is right. What the member for Dobell is referring to is anti-cost shifting measures that were quite properly introduced by the Commonwealth government. Our offer to the states involves a real increase of 15 per cent over five years. I would say to the health ministers of the states that have not signed: take a leaf out of the Horan-Borbidge book. They acted in the interests of the people of Queensland and you ought to act in the interests of the people of your respective states.31903190Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer the minister to the Treasurer's statements last night confirming that the gold health card will be now made available to over 50,000 Australian World War II veterans—a very good initiative. Minister, how many veterans in my electorate of Richmond will benefit from this initiative and what form will this initiative take?3190Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—Eighty years ago in this nation the repatriation system was established. It was put in place to support the men and women returning from active service to this country. Last night's budget was a very good budget for all Australians and it is a particularly good budget for our veteran community. Last night this government took the landmark decision to extend the gold card eligibility to Australian Second World War veterans and mariners aged 70 and over with qualifying service from the Second World War. An estimated 50,000 Second World War veterans will benefit from this landmark decision. It is a very tangible way of a nation demonstrating its gratitude for the service that they have given to this great nation of ours.The member also asked how many veterans in his electorate of Richmond will benefit from this initiative. On the basis of the information that we have within our repatriation system, it is estimated that something like 840 veterans in the electorate of Richmond will benefit from this initiative. But there could well be a lot more veterans in all members' electorates than we have on our records. That is why it is important that all members get behind this very important initiative. All members will receive several of these application forms. I would urge members to get them out into their ex-service communities and to their veterans. If members care about veterans, they will make sure that, on 1 January, all eligible veterans actually benefit from this great initiative of the federal government. What does this deliver to those veterans? The veterans gold card eligibility will bring private patient hospital care, a choice of doctor, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry care products and also chiropractic services.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What about hearing services? What have you done to hearing services for gold card members?YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—You are just so ignorant. This landmark decision of the coalition government is really a very tangible way of a grateful nation saying, `Thank you,' to those Second World War veterans. I might add their average age is 76.5 years of age. They need the support of a grateful nation in this the greatest hour of their need.31903190Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family Services. Is the minister aware that Aged Care Australia, a major peak body in care for the frail aged in this country, has said that the budget `ignores the real concerns of older Australians who are entitled to believe the government will ensure their access to care in quality facilities'? In light of this, can the minister explain to older Australians needing nursing home care why they have to pay up to $27,000 a year in nursing home fees and face the prospect of a GST increasing those fees another 10 per cent?3190Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—This question is a continuation of the activities of the shadow minister to raise issues that do not address the fundamentals of delivering quality residential care to aged Australians. There are 132,000 elderly Australians in the nursing homes and hostels of Australia, and there are about 3,000 of them. We have put in place policies that will stream capital into those homes so that we can improve the quality and address the problems. The Labor Party failed to address these issues when they had the opportunity to do so in government by decreasing the amount of capital.Ms Macklin interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—As the member for Jagajaga well knows—as does Aged Care Australia—the streaming of the accommodation charge, and the other announcements that have been made in the budget and prior to the budget, will result in some $40 million being utilised to front-end load and try to bring some of those homes up to standard as rapidly as possible. We are concerned about delivering to the aged of this community quality aged care where they choose to go into residences. You neglected this issue and you know it. To now raise the matter in the way you have in this question is absolutely deplorable.With regard to the issue of a GST, this seems to me to be just an attempt by you to tag and scare elderly Australians. We will not be doing anything to the elderly but ensuring that they get quality care and support from the taxpayers of Australia—something that you neglected to do. All your huffing and puffing and scare tactics will be seen for what they are.31913191Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. The budget has been very well received in my electorate of Dawson. How will the aged in Australia benefit from last year's budget? Were there any initiatives announced that will increase flexibility in aged care?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What about last year's budget?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sure the honourable member meant `last night's budget'.3191Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I am sure the member for Dawson was watching last night.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance immediately. The question was directed to how they benefit from last year's budget. He immediately began answering it by referring to last night's budget. He has automatically rendered himself irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I think there is little doubt that each of us makes an occasional slip. I am sure the honourable member for Dawson meant last night's budget and we all accept the minister responding in that form.Mr Beazley interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your sensible guidance to the Leader of the Opposition, who is obviously in need of some help. Can I say to the member for Dawson and to all members of the House that the decisions taken last night in the budget go towards trying to put in place a framework for the long-term needs of the elderly in this country. We want to develop a continuum of care. It is not just about delivering funds to residential care, which we have done, and I will show the House in a moment how that has been increased. That is $2.9 billion that we will spend in this budget period. What we did just before the budget and what the Treasurer announced in detail last night concerned the issue of the staying at home package. It is $280 million giving the opportunity for elderly Australians to stay in their homes and I have advertised some 500 new community aged care packages on behalf of the government already so that we can take care into the home, look after elderly people in their homes and let that be a choice.We have also extended the carers allowance and recognised that there are some 500,000-odd carers in this nation who are deserving of our support. They are the epitome of the volunteer spirit in this country in the way that they look after their elderly relatives and loved ones. We are going to give them support.We are doing things that have not been done before in this country, such as giving continence assistance. We are doing things that have not been done before, such as supporting elderly parents who are looking after disabled children. They are issues in the staying at home package.Last night we went further. We have continued with the home and community care approach. There has been a $24 million or five per cent increase in the allocations for home and community care. That will be $500 million for home and community care. If the states combine with us, that will be a $1 billion program caring for elderly Australians in their home.Ms Macklin interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—How can you interject on an issue such as that? These are important matters. In addition, we have addressed the issue of the gold card, as mentioned by my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for those people who have served their country. We have looked after self-funded retirees and helped them with their pharmaceutical costs, which is the classic approach for the seniors card that is being announced by the Prime Minister. All of those issues taken together signal to the elderly of this country that we do in fact care and we have addressed the issue. We have addressed the issue of residential nursing homes.Opposition members interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—You are the ones who are interjecting all the time. It is $2.9 billion. This is the graph and that is what the figures do; that is where it goes. Those dollars go up and that is the extent of our commitment. As I have shown the House before, this is what you did to support the aged of this community. You are a disgrace. You do not care about the elderly. We do.31923192Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business confirmed that he was discussing with you indemnity for damages arising from the Patrick's fiasco. Has the minister sought an indemnity? Will you rule out providing such an indemnity? Can you confirm that you personally visited solicitors in Melbourne last Friday to check their files on this matter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not strictly legal advice, so I will call on the Attorney-General to respond.3192Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—When those opposite were in government, there were guidelines relating to the assistance provided to ministers in relation to litigation. Basically those guidelines are still in place. Decisions will be made by the appropriate persons in relation to issues arising. If it is considered appropriate, the matter will be announced or not announced—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point or order. It goes to relevance. My question was very specific. Has the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business sought indemnity through the Attorney-General?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Has the Attorney finished his answer?7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I thought I had made it plain that I was not going to answer that.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no obligation on a minister to reply to any question put in this place.31923192Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister inform the House what response there has been to last night's budget from the small business community?3192Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I am delighted to say that the small business community is absolutely thrilled with the budget. I can say to the Treasurer, on behalf of the small business community for whom I have responsibility, that the small business community applauds the efforts of the budget that you brought down.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has the call and should be allowed to proceed with his answer.WI4Mr REITH—From the far-flung parts of Dubbo all the way to Dubai, the small business community is saying, `What a great budget.' They compliment the Treasurer. If you like that, from Oman to Omeo they say, `What a fantastic budget. It is great for small business.' Why are they saying that? Because we dropped the provisional tax uplift factor. That is dollars in the pockets of the small business community.The avgas decision was a great decision for the small business aviators in Australia. There was money for the business entry point. It is great for small business to start reducing the costs of administration for small business. Making a serious attack on the problems of red tape is good for small business. The very innovative proposals that you have for raising awareness of this millennium bug problem is a good, sensible measure which will be to the benefit of the small business community. This is practical government in the interests of prosperous small business.Lastly, to mention another one, there was an additional $50 million in funding for tourist promotion. There are literally tens of thousands, if not more, small businesses in the tourism business that will enjoy the benefits of this particular measure of the budget. Whether it is the Australian Food Council, the Australian Business Chamber, the Australian Hotels Association or the Australian Small Business Association Ltd, they are all saying, `Good on you, Treasurer. It is a good budget. It is good for small business and it is good for Australia.'ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice319331933193Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I should point out to the House that the number of self-funded retirees to benefit from the government's measure is 220,000 not 250,000.Personal Explanations319315:28:003193Baldwin, Peter, MPMr PETER BALDWINMD4SydneyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MD4Baldwin, Peter, MPMr PETER BALDWIN—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MD4Baldwin, Peter, MPMr PETER BALDWIN—Earlier today in responding to a question the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) indicated to the House that I had denigrated the record of the Labor government in education and training at a policy forum last week. In actual fact, I did precisely the opposite. I said that the area of education and training was an area of enormous achievement for the former government and that the great bulk of the criticisms that were levelled at the government at the time were invalid.I qualified that by saying that we were slow to develop a fully integrated approach in the different areas of education and training, but I then said that we well and truly corrected that problem by the early 1990s and that the present government is far more open to criticism on that score than we were because of decisions such as the abolition of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, a cross-sectoral advisory body. What the minister had me arguing in question time today was essentially the opposite of what I argued.Questions Without Notice319331933193Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I wish to add to the answer I gave in the House yesterday in response to a question from the honourable member for Groom concerning India's nuclear tests. In my answer I referred to representations we have made to the Indian government to convey Australia's strong opposition to nuclear testing and to urge India to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. In addition to the representations I referred to yesterday, our high commissioner also made representations to former Prime Minister Gujral. I note that it was these representations that were made on 23 April and that the representations to the Prime Minister's principal secretary were made on 30 April, not 23 April as I had indicated.Questions to the Speaker319331933193Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, my question to you is about conduct in the chamber. I draw your attention to page 174 of House of Representatives Practice where it says `mobile phones may not be brought into the chamber'. Mr Speaker, after you had called question time and while the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet, a stranger seated in one of the chairs on the government side, presumably at the invitation of one of the government members, persisted in not just carrying a mobile phone but continuing to talk into it, despite the urgings of one of the attendants. Mr Speaker, my question to you is: do I assume that the rule in respect of mobile phones has changed or can I safely assume that, at some stage, those strangers invited at the request of members opposite might be told appropriately how to conduct themselves when they are out of school?3194Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Those strangers, as you call them, seated behind the government benches were in fact the Finnish minister and his party. Unfortunately, we did not advise them about the standing orders of the House. I agree, however, that no guests or otherwise in this place should be bringing a mobile phone into the chamber. We will make sure that in future they should not bring mobile phones into the chamber.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—If I can have a little bit of silence, I will finish what I have to say. I think it is important that there be a normal scrutiny of those who come on to the floor as into the gallery, and in future we will ask that all persons who have mobile phones deposit them outside the chamber before they are allowed into its precincts.31943194Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I want to point out that I think the flags look absolutely fantastic. But my question is: could you advise the House how they are raised and lowered by the attendants?3194Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—They have a sort of a cherry picker with a difference. It was designed to test them out. As I explained yesterday, the intention with these several changes, apart from anything else, was to try to bring the House in. If by bigger flags we give at least the semblance of concentrating the chamber, the moves will be a success. They will be discussed by the House Committee at the first available opportunity.31943194Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—On 13 May last year I put a question on notice to the Minister for Health and Family Services concerning guidelines for applying to correspondence. On 13 May this year, on the anniversary of putting that question, I ask, pursuant to standing order 150, whether you could write to the minister seeking reasons for the delay in responding.3194Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will again write and ensure that the minister is requested, in accordance with the standing orders, to respond to the question on notice put by the honourable member for Wills.Documents31943194Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act—Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 1996-97 and the period 1 July to 24 October 1997.Australia-India Council—Report for 1996-97.Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act—Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Strategic plan for July 1998 to December 2000.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—Environmental Performance Review of Australia, together with statement by the Minister for the Environment.Torres Strait Fisheries Act—Protected Zone Joint Authority—Reports for—1995-96.1996-97.Treaty—Multilateral with national interest analyses—Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, done at New York on 10 September 1996.Matters of Public Importance3194319410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Budget to address unemployment and reverse the pain inflicted unnecessarily on Australian families.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:34:003195Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—The Treasurer (Mr Costello), who has now scuttled off to Sydney to address some meeting, appeared this morning on every front page of this country's newspapers gloating about the surplus that he claims to have delivered, asking Australians to believe that this was somehow all his and the government's own work, as if it was the product of some great feat of backroom financial engineering that deserved praise and applause.But beaming out or smirking out, as he was, across the nation's newspapers this morning there was one big thought occupying the Treasurer's mind and that was the hope, above all else, that the community would forget how precisely this surplus was obtained. For the very good reason, he was hoping that, that the truth of the matter is that that surplus was not obtained by some ascetic feat of backroom financial engineering by the Treasurer and his cohorts but obtained on the back of Australia's unemployed and on the back of Australia's families who have been doing it so hard over the last two years—a surplus obtained and paid for by two years of absolutely savage cuts to health, to nursing homes, to education, to child care and to job programs in particular.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer have been carrying on as though they created the surplus, that it was all their own work, but the truth of the matter, as Australians know all too well and will not forget, is that this particular surplus was paid for by those doing it hardest paying the most—the jobless, the elderly, those relying on child care, those wanting access to affordable higher education, those wanting access to decent schooling for their kids, those wanting and needing hospital care and dental care and affordable pharmaceuticals, and those wanting and needing affordable access to nursing homes.This was not a budget surplus built—as it could have been and as it should have been—on jobs and growth. It was built on these savage budget cuts that have become so deeply and unpalatably familiar to so many Australians over the last two years—cuts that have ensured that we no longer have in this country hospitals that work, schools that work, affordable higher education, affordable child care; that we no longer have a dental scheme for those in need; that we no longer have affordable nursing homes and aged care; that we no longer have job programs worth the name; that we no longer have an affordable, and one that works, employment placement scheme.We are being asked to admire the surplus. We are being asked as a whole community to admire the handiwork but to forget how it was obtained—to forget the job losses, to forget the cuts to services, to forget what he has done to schools and what they have done to hospitals, to forget the damage to communities and the damage to families. We are being asked to focus only on the surplus, not caring who has paid for it, not caring who has suffered along the way.The Australian people, and in particular those families and those unemployed who have been doing it hardest, will not forget. They will not forget they have been hurt and, in particular, they will not be dissuaded from understanding that they have been hurt—and understanding how much they have been hurt—by the baubles and bribes that have been offered in recent months as a panicky response to some of the political problems that the government has created itself by the savagery of those particular cuts. People will understand when they look at it and understand the detail of it that in each one of those areas of major program cuts what has been put back in does not even begin to replace that which has been taken out. For a start, if you look at the area of health you will see that what damage has been done to public hospitals, to dental services, to increased pharmaceutical costs—to the whole Medicare system—adds up to something like $3.6 billion. That has been the impact of the budget in 1996, the budget in 1997 and the cumulative impact over time of its continuing operation. When you look at what has gone back into the health system, even giving the most generous possible assessment of the money that has been made available to the states—or will be forced down their throats—for hospital funding, even though most of them are absolutely unprepared to accept it as remotely adequate for their needs, you still have a situation where over $1½ billion has been taken out of hospitals and medical care in this country in the last two years—$1.62 billion.When you look at the particular situation of some of those baubles that have been on offer, legitimate and sensible and useful and acceptable though they may individually be, you will see that they simply do not compensate for the damage done and the pain caused. As was said in question time today, for every self-funded retiree who gets the new health care card in this budget, there are 20 health care card holders who were hit by the 1996 budget cuts, which abolished the Commonwealth dental health program and also forced them to pay more for every prescription. So when you look at the balance of pain and hurt against advantage that has been on offer from the government you find the balance swinging down overwhelmingly and unmistakably and graphically and monstrously on the side of pain—$1.6 billion worth of net pain in the operation of the health system alone.Similarly in education, $3 billion worth of pain has been administered through the enrolment benchmark adjustment, the higher education fee changes, the vocational education and training cuts, the student assistance cuts and a whole variety of other programs. More than $3 billion has been taken out of the education system. How much has been put in over the last budget and is proposed to be put back in in the current budget? Something less than $100 million—less than one-thirtieth of the total money that has been taken out. So right there is $2.99 billion, if you want to be precise, of net pain inflicted on the education system.The aged and community care system has been treated similarly—nursing homes, HACC, disability carers' allowance. Add up the hurt that has been caused by taking the money out, take into account as generously as you want to the money that has been put back in and you have a net loss, a net accumulation of pain, of $400 million. Look at what has been taken out of child care. Add it all up and take into account what has been put back, which in short is nothing, and you have a net impact of pain inflicted on the child-care system and those who want to take advantage of it of $800 million.You look at job programs and what has been taken out there and what negligible amount has been put back in, you balance the two together and you have a net pain quotient here of $1.5 billion. This is the story that this budget tells. This is the balance of pain. This is the balance of hurt. This is how this particular surplus has been paid for.And the tragedy of it all is that it has been so unnecessary. I will explain just why it is unnecessary in a moment, but first of all let us look at the particular pain that has also been inflicted in this budget on the unemployed—the pain of continuing hopelessness that has been put on the unemployed people of Australia by a budget that offers them no hope whatsoever of any improvement in their situation. The budget papers, for the unemployed, are an abject confession of failure. After three years of government the forecast is that unemployment will be 7¾ per cent. Even that is based on a lower participation rate than was inherited by this particular government. It has to be the case that unemployment will rise above eight per cent over the course of this year. The budget papers acknowledge that. They say that the average for the year is going to eight per cent, even though it is 7.9 per cent now and is predicted to be 7¾ per cent at the end of next year. It has to go up before it comes down. Will it come down? That is a very heroic assumption indeed so far as these budget papers are concerned.We saw some of the assumptions on display in parliament here today in the way in which the Treasurer ducked and weaved and refused to respond to the challenge that was put to him very simply and straightforwardly: if you claim that employment growth is going to increase from 1¼ per cent to 1¾ per cent, as the budget papers say it is, how do you reconcile that with the statements in the budget papers that growth itself is going to come down from 3¾ per cent to three per cent? How do you reconcile it with the fact that the crucial underpinning of growth, private consumption, is forecast in the budget papers to itself come down from five per cent to four per cent? How do you reconcile that with the fact that business investment is forecast in the budget papers to come down from 13 per cent to eight per cent? Those crucial underpinnings of growth are coming down, and growth itself is coming down, yet we are told that the employment growth is going to go up. How? It is unexplained. The Treasurer was given an opportunity to explain it today; we heard from him absolutely nothing—absolute silence. He has no idea.The truth of the matter is that these are not just abstract numbers we are talking about. This really does matter. We as a nation were capable of doing something about the unemployment situation. In the Labor Party's last period in office, we grew employment at 2.7 per cent every year on average. That was our record. The Howard government average so far is 1.6 per cent. If we had maintained a 2.7 per cent employment growth average over the course of this government, then we would be now sitting on six per cent unemployment with 150,000 people fewer out of work. That would be the basis on which we would be facing the Asian firestorm, not this absolutely unpalatable, unacceptable and shameless choice that has been made by the government to ignore the plight of the unemployed. It is possible to deal with that. We produced 550,000 jobs in our last 26 months in office; the Howard government in its first 26 months in office produced just 235,000 jobs. And the Prime Minister had the indecency on national radio—I heard him this morning or last night—to actually brag about the 235,000 jobs and to utterly fail to acknowledge the reality that that is almost one-third of the job rate we were actually achieving. That is not a matter for pride; it is a matter for absolute shame.The tragedy of it is that this situation for the unemployed, the situation for all those battlers in Australian families who have been hurt by those cuts, was avoidable. The course taken by the government was a matter of choice, and it was not a necessary choice. There was an alternative route back to the surplus that we all acknowledge is desirable to be achieved over the course of the economic cycle, the balance that is desirable to be achieved. There was a course which this government could have chosen which we in opposition have mapped for the last two years and which the budget papers last night—when you look at their detailed arithmetic—absolutely confirmed.The basic idea behind this alternative approach—a much more compassionate approach and a much more legitimate approach—is that you base your return to surplus not on savage cuts but on jobs and growth. You try to have moderate budget cuts to the degree that is necessary. You try to do it in a way where you do not knock the confidence, the stuffing, out of the economy. You do it in a way where you do not take jobs directly out of the economy through the impact of those cuts. You grow the economy as a result at around one per cent higher than has been achieved by the Howard government—no difficult task when you consider that we grew it one per cent higher when we were in government—and you create a situation where you get more jobs, more revenue flowing from those jobs, less outlays on social security and, as a result, an in-built momentum towards correction of those deficit problems.You can do it. The arithmetic by which you can do it was laid out there for all to absolutely see in the budget last night. It is spelt out in the press release that we issued last night, if anyone wants more detail, but let me give you very simply the essence of that arithmetic. The government is claiming a surplus for 1998-99, as we all know now, of $2.7 billion. That surplus is based on a series of policy measures introduced over successive budgets taking effect this year which amounted—pluses against minuses—to a net negative of $5.4 billion. That is the quantum, the effect, of the cuts that actually operate in 1998-99. If you subtract those policy measures—$5.4 billion—from the $2.7 billion that has actually been identified as the surplus, you get a result of course of minus $2.7 billion, and that represents the deficit that there would have been had there been no policy changes since the last Labor govern ment and the last Labor budget. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. That must be what it represents. So the deficit that the Labor Party in government would have faced in prospect for 1998-99 was a deficit of the order of $3 billion. That deficit could very easily have been fixed. It could have been fixed by moderate cuts amounting to $1 billion in the first year, 1996-97, another $1 billion on top of that of additional cuts in 1997-98, with another proposed billion dollars cutting in—making the three billion—for 1998-99.The arithmetic is there. None of that arithmetic relies on the growth dividend that I suggested a moment ago would further flow from a process of having a more moderate budget cutting environment which would in fact result in more growth being able to be injected in the economy and all that flows from that in terms of lesser outlays and greater revenue. That is additional. That is cream on the cake. That would have built us up towards the actual surplus that has been achieved. But that is the arithmetic. That is what is possible. That is the course that was available.If this had been a surplus built on jobs and growth, like the big four Labor surpluses of the late 1980s, Treasurer Costello and this government would have had something to be genuinely crowing about, but it was not that kind of budget. It was not a budget built on choices, rational choices, compassionate and human choices of the kind that were available. It was a budget, rather, built on the backs of the unemployed, built on the backs of the battlers, built on the backs of families and those doing it hardest, and as such it is a budget of which this government should not be proud but be ashamed. (Time expired)15:49:003198Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I was in Sydney this morning and on the way back to the airport I was listening to John Laws, the radio broadcaster. It is worth reminding members opposite that John Laws indicated this morning on radio that Gareth Evans would never be Treasurer in this country. He went on to say that he thought that the bumbling and the struggling that was going on with the opposition's Treasury spokesman last night was one of the worst performances he had ever seen. He said that he did not deserve to ever sit on the government benches again.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—That is John Laws—just so that you did not miss what I said. Yes, I should indicate to you he was not very flattering. I have to say I thought that was very unkind. I thought that was just a little over the top. Mr Laws of course is not prone to going over the top on most issues. I have to say that, after listening to the spokesman on Treasury matters, the spokesman on the economy, from the Labor Party for the last 15 minutes I now have some reservations that it was over the top. I have some inclination to support the remarks that were made by that radio broadcaster this morning on Sydney radio—in fact that radio program which goes right around Australia.What we have seen here this afternoon is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking once again to rewrite history. Despite what Labor did whilst they were in government, despite the fact that nobody on the Labor side for the last 2¼ years was prepared to admit until last Sunday that there was a deficit left by Labor, despite that that was fact—it has been there on the record in black and white ever since this government came to power in March 1996—it was only last Sunday that for the first time we had a recognition of that. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition admitting to leaving this nation in debt. `Labor left this nation in debt' the headline said in the Age on Monday.I again give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition credit for admitting that because we know that on 17 April 1996 in a doorstop interview the Leader of the Opposition said:The black hole is a fraud. It doesn't exist.So this self-denial has been going on for all of this time and we now see, as a result of this budget—a budget universally welcomed, welcomed around Australia, by all the independent commentators—the opposition seeking to say, `It didn't have to be done this way. It could have been achieved in another way. If we had had the time, we could have achieved with modest cuts a surplus in 1998-99.' One can only point to the opposition and say, as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) pointed out today and as I raised in the House only yesterday, that they had five years, and in the last five years that they were in government when they had a chance with growth to get themselves back on top, to get this nation back on top, what did they do? They ran up debt to the tune, as the Treasurer said today, of some additional $80 billion. They threw $12 billion at the One Nation program. They threw it at that to try to create jobs and in the process left a legacy of debt—a legacy which we unfortunately had to accept and a legacy that we have done something about.The reality is that we created the surplus in last night's budget. We have created the surplus in the 1998-99 year from one simple, fundamental approach to it: we are living within our means. We are not spending what we have not got. We are prepared to say that we would not raise taxes and we have not raised taxes. In the course of three consecutive years there have been no new taxes. I would ask members opposite to go back through their record and see where in their 13 years three years went by when there were no new taxes introduced.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—You had your chance and you blew it a long time ago. You do not understand the basic principles in running a budget and, as John Laws said today, you will never be Treasurer.As I indicated, we have given in the course of living within our means significant benefits to those areas within our community that deserve those benefits, those areas that deserve priority. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his speech on the matter of public importance spoke more broadly on every aspect of the budget and spoke very little about jobs, because there is not much to say on what Labor has done on jobs. I would ask him to look at the aspects of the last three years that have been brought to this economy by this government. For starters, there are the lower interest rates. We had 10½ per cent home mortgage rates in 1996. Those home mortgage rates today are 6½ per cent. All of those people out there that have managed, because of the best housing affordability we have seen for a long, long time, to get into a house have done so through lower interest rates. And, of course, they have supported significantly the building industry, which has had a real boost through that housing affordability created by this government.We have seen the family tax cuts over this period. That has put real money to those who deserve it: the families, those who are supporting young Australians. They deserve it and they have got it. We have seen reductions in tax on savings that will lock in from 1 July this year.We heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talk about what we have not done for health. We heard the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) stand up here today and try to fudge the books again. That is the old trick of Labor: fudge the books, cloud the issue, throw a figure out there and hope to God that nobody questions it. He said that we cut $300 million from the health budget in the 1996 budget. As the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) accurately said, that was for cost shifting. As someone who knew a little bit about that in days gone by in my former life, I can say to you that it did occur, though it occurred in other states much more than it did in New South Wales. The trick was that, when you had an expense that might have been incurred in the hospital, if it was for pharmacy, if it was for radiology, you sent them outside and let the Commonwealth health budget pay for those expenses. It was best, if someone wanted to get a script at a local chemist, if you could get the Commonwealth, it paying for the PBS, to pay for it. That was the cost shifting. That has happened, it was there, and it is a silly process we have between the Commonwealth and the states that caused that to happen. They were the only cuts to the hospitals.We had a locked-in agreement that was of course negotiated by the former Labor government. I well remember the time because it was signed just before the 1993 election. We have not in any shape or form cut hospitals. What this budget provides is $2.9 billion in additional funding for the next five-year agreement. That represents a 15 per cent increase in real terms in the amount of money that is going through for our whole system. That is on top of those other matters which the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) spoke of in this House today: the support that is being given for preventative medicine that will ensure that all over 65 get the inoculation for the flu, the funding that is there for the general practitioners, the huge boost to medical research that overcomes the difficulties of a time limited support for that area that was put in place by the former government and some $40 million that went for Aboriginal health. So our health credentials in this budget are very much to the forefront.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said you cannot have employment increases simply because the forecast is for 7.75 per cent and by the end of next year it will be around eight per cent. Let us just stop for a moment and see where we have come from in employment. We have the lowest unemployment in this nation for eight years. In the life of this government, 2¼ years, we have seen some 280,000 new jobs created in this country. That is fact.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects and says 550,000 in the same period. What you forget to say—you are always pretty good at this—is that in the course of that recession that I do not think we ever had to have but which Labor gave us we lost over 300,000 full-time jobs in that period. We had unemployment at 11.2 per cent—the highest unemployment since the Great Depression in this country. They tried to pull out of that and they fired $12 billion at the One Nation program. In the course of firing that extra money to try to buy the jobs—the walk in, walk out process where you lined up one day and you got some sort of training and a few weeks later you lined up at the back of the unemployment line again—no real jobs flowed from it. You dropped the jobs in huge numbers, in hundreds of thousands, during that period and you ran up debt with those successive deficit budgets in an attempt to bail yourself out. We have had to address that debt of course. We have done so. We did not walk away from the problem. We have done that in a way which has led us to that surplus.I liked again the attempt in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's press release to try to say, `If only we had an and a bit more time'—the old line: give us a bit more time—`we could have fixed the problems we created. We could have done it in a much better way in the sense of not being as harsh.'Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—Simple arithmetic, he says. The fact is that you would not have. Your record shows that you had no capacity. You are hooked on debt and deficit, you are addicted to debt and deficit, and you are have proved it for five successive years—Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already had his turn in this debate. He will remain silent.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—Prior to being told in no uncertain terms by the Australian people that they no longer wanted you. But notwithstanding that, of course, what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition fails to acknowledge in any of these little equations—these simple tables that he puts out—is that there is a question of debt servicing. There is the question of the debt that you were running up and continuing to service it. We started that process of debt servicing in 1996 through a number of ways. Firstly, we continued to live within our means. We did not spend what we did not have. We also enacted a privatisation program. But the difference between the active privatisation program of the coalition government and that of the Labor Party when they were in government is that we use our privatisation program to retire debt. You used the money you received to simply pay for recurrent expenditure: `Sell something and let us get a few more programs out there. Let us pander to the vested interest groups that we know we need for that political support.' Whatever the reason, you used the proceeds of your privatisation sales to pay for your recurrent expenditure.We have retired debt and set in motion a program that will allow us to halve our debt servicing as a proportion of GDP by the year 2000; it is in this nation's interest. It will be most interesting to see again the contribution from Labor in the debate, if we are to be given the opportunity to allow Australians to acquire more shares in Telstra, that great Australian company. We have the capacity to go down to one or 1½ per cent as a proportion of GDP in terms of our debt by early in the next century through the privatisation sale of the other two-thirds of Telstra.Private consumption is down. It is still there. It is still positive. Private investment was at 17 per cent in our first year and about half of that, I think, in the second year. Eight per cent is significant and very healthy in comparison with what we saw in the way of capital expenditure investment under Labor. Again, we are seeing that the fundamentals are there: locked-in low inflation, locked-in low interest rates—locked in to the extent that the fundamentals are there to ensure—Mr Bevis interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—It is just a matter of official interest rates for the Reserve Bank, but it is to ensure that there is an affordability there in so many of those areas, and there is none more so than for small business. What were the small business loan rates under Labor? They were 20.5 per cent. What are the rates today? They are 7.7 per cent—down to about a third. Under the economically responsible policies of this government we are seeing that there is some certainty about what business does for investment.If you are really serious about jobs, why are you stopping the farmers from getting an opportunity to get their exports through our wharves, getting them overseas, getting money for them and becoming viable? Why are you stopping manufacturers by your approach on the waterfront from being able to get rid of their product to customers in other parts of the world? Because you have jumped into line with those who do not want reform, who want to make sure that the rorts and the work practices are always maintained.You are not serious about jobs. You have never been serious about them in any true sense. Your economic policies of the past have proved that. The attitude that you take today on so many issues shows that the question of stopping sustainable growth, as best you can, is endemic. It is in your party. It is in your philosophy. It is in every step that you take.Last night's budget was the result of a great deal of hard work. It was the result of living within our means. It has brought dividends to this nation with the best fundamentals that we have had for many years—the lowest unemployment rates since the 1960s, the best inflation rate since the 1960s—which are a springboard for this nation to proceed with sustainable growth in the future. (Time expired)16:04:003201Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—After the government has brought down three budgets, we and the nation can get a pretty good sense of the priorities of this government. What is abundantly clear after last night's budget, and this government's performance in office to date, is that increasing employment and reducing unemployment are not high priorities for this government. That is abundantly clear. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) had virtually nothing to say about unemployment in his budget speech last night. He talked a lot about journeying along a road, about passing milestones and all this sort of stuff, but on unemployment he is right up a blind alley.The fact is that this government has been a total failure on employment creation and on reducing unemployment. It came into office promising to boost jobs growth. This was after there had been a period of extremely strong employment growth. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised in the election campaign that he would boost jobs growth and that he would do better than the previous government had done. What has he done? As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) has said, his performance in terms of increasing employment has been abysmal.Contrast the 550,000 jobs which were created in Labor's last 26 months in office with the first 26 months of this government when we had 236,000 jobs created. The Prime Minister is 314,000 jobs short of matching Labor's performance. That is three MCG grand final crowds, and a bit more, full of people who are without jobs because this government could not match the previous government's employment performance.That is what this government has delivered: an abysmal employment performance. As a result of that, we have an unemployment rate which has hardly gone down since they came into office; it has gone down from 8.4 per cent to 7.9 per cent. It only just got there last month after 26 months and they were going around saying, `Aren't we terrific, we have got below eight per cent?' After two years and two months they should have been way below eight per cent. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, we should be looking at six per cent these days, not just under eight per cent. Of course, the figures on employment show how bad this government has been for full-time employment. In the first 26 months of this government there have been only 118,000 additional full-time jobs created against 330,000 under Labor in its last 26 months—an even more appalling performance by the government in relation to full-time employment.This government has clearly been a disaster in the area of unemployment. Why? Firstly, because of the slump in the growth rate, especially in 1996-97 where the growth rate slumped to 2.7 per cent after it had averaged an economic growth rate of 4.4 per cent per annum for the previous three years. Then it went down to 2.7 per cent. Why? Because this government came in saying, `We are going to cut like hell!' and proceeded to do so. When the growth of the economy went down, obviously, employment growth went down with it. Economic growth picked up in 1997-98 to 3¾per cent, but it is still not back to the rates that were being achieved under the previous government. So employment growth is still inadequate. We had average employment growth under Labor over the previous three years of 2.8 per cent. This government has averaged a miserable 1.2 per cent in its first two years in office.Of course, we have also seen poor employment performance because of the slashing of government expenditure on labour market programs. A major element of the expenditure cuts brought in in the 1996 budget was in the area of employment programs. Expenditure cuts of $1,836 million over four years, which accounted for a quarter of all expenditure cuts and other budget tightening measures, were in the area of labour market programs. That has had a particularly damaging effect on the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged people in the work force.The government justified this by saying they would bring in a better, more effective employment services system. We can all see that out there now, and what an absolute shambles it is. Many unemployed do not qualify for free assistance. Many offices of the new job network are not open or are working part time. Their computers are not linked up. Employers are finding they are going to be charged hundreds of dollars to take on new people. It is a complete shambles.And what of this year? The budget estimate is for employment growth of 1¾ per cent. This employment forecast, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, is highly doubtful, firstly because it is in the face of a fall in the GDP growth rate from 3¾ per cent to three per cent. So you have falling growth but rising employment growth, which just does not add up.The three per cent growth figure itself is highly dubious, and various commentators made that point last night. It depends on the AMP's shareholders deciding to spend the benefits of their shares; that is, to dissave. Once the savings are unlocked by the demutualisation they will rush out and spend the money. If that happens that will certainly give some boost to consumption. To the extent that it might happen, no-one really knows; they are basing it on an English experience in different circumstances. It is somewhat fortuitous for the government, I guess, that that is there to give some boost to the economy. The government also assumes that export growth will be assisted by substantial diversions from Asia to other markets, which may or may not occur.Even accepting that three per cent GDP growth figure, the employment forecast of 1¾ per cent is highly doubtful because it is an increase from 1¼ per cent last year to 1¾ per cent this year. The employment growth is forecast to increase by half a per cent while the GDP growth figure is going down by three-quarters of a per cent. This implies a dramatic reduction in productivity, because in 1997-98 you have GDP growth of 3¾ per cent and employment growth of 1¼ per cent. So the difference, which is a broad estimate of productivity, is 2½ per cent. In 1998-99 you have GDP growth of three per cent and employment growth of 1¾ per cent, they tell us, which means productivity has dropped to 1¼ per cent. So you have this dramatic decline in productivity while at the same time the budget papers are telling us that productivity growth is improving.It says on page 1.8 that the increase in the capital stock is contributing to an improved productivity performance, but the budget figures are telling us that productivity is going through the floor. This simply does not add up and it does not add up because this employment number is shonky. The 1¾ per cent figure, which they need to be able to show that there is some decline in unemployment in prospect, is simply not a figure that is credible.The estimate of the 1¾ per cent is highly dubious. When the Treasurer was asked at question time by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition how he could justify this situation of rising employment growth whilst GDP growth was coming down, he had no explanation. He said it was because jobs growth was already in the pipeline and would continue. What is in the pipeline? You look at the trend rate of growth of employment, which was 8,500 in the last month. That is in the pipeline. If we continued with that pipeline, we would have 1.2 per cent growth in 12 months. That is what is in the pipeline, not 1¾ per cent, assuming that trend continued in the face of a declining GDP rate of growth. So this whole figure simply does not add up.Even with this shonky employment estimate, unemployment is still estimated to increase in 1998-99. That is, we have a figure now of 7.9 per cent and we have a forecast in the budget that that figure is going to go to an average of eight per cent in 1998-99—so it must go up. If it is going to go up and then come back to 7¾ per cent by the end of the period, which is the budget forecast, we have this curious picture of the unemployment rate going up and down through the year as the employment figures go up faster through the year whilst GDP growth is coming down. It is simply does not add up. It does not add up because this government needed a figure in the bottom line that said 7¾ per cent—something less than eight per cent—and the only way they could get it was by using this employment figure. Bear in mind also that this figure of 7.9 per cent does not count 88,000 people who would be there but for the fall in the participation rate. If they were included, we would have an unemployment rate today of 8.8 per cent.This budget also shows a lack of concern for unemployment by the fact that, in the face of this failure to create jobs and to get unemployment down, they have taken the step of further slashing another $148 million in funds off employment services on top of the $1.8 billion we lost in 1996. That means there is even less money there for the long-term unemployed and for the people who really need assistance in the face of a clear inability to get the unemployment rate down. If that does not tell you that this is a government that does not care about the unemployed, is not concerned about reducing unemployment and does not give a high priority to reducing unemployment, then I do not know what else does. This is a government which has clearly shown by everything it does in this House that it does not care about the unemployed. (Time expired)16:14:003203Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—To sit here and listen to the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) speak on this MPI raised by the opposition and to hear them preach to us in the government about unemployment is almost beyond belief. Over their 13 years of government, they inflicted pain and devastation on the whole of the Australian community. We heard the member for Gellibrand criticise us for bringing unemployment down to 7.9 per cent. For the whole of the 13 years that Labor was in government the average unemployment under Labor was 8.7 per cent.But there was much worse than that: under Labor, unemployment peaked at 11.2 per cent in December 1992. Who was their employment minister in December 1992? It was none other than Kim Beazley, Leader of the Opposition. He was the employment minister when more than one million Australians were out of work. Youth unemployment peaked at 34.1 per cent in July 1992. Between July 1990 and February 1993, some 339,800 full-time jobs were lost. Long-term unemployment increased by 95,000 when Mr Beazley was minister for employment—maybe that should have been minister for unemployment. Labor sent a message to our young people that the dole was an acceptable lifestyle, an acceptable way of life, as opposed to seeking education, training and real employment.In December 1992, as I said, unemployment was 11.2 per cent. What was the reason unemployment was so high? Why were one million people out of work? It was because of the economic incompetence of the Labor government. We had interest rates that were running at record highs. Business interest rates were 20.5 per cent—nearly three times what they are now. How could business survive with interest rates of 20.5 per cent? How could they expand? How could they increase their employment? That is why unemployment was at 11.2 per cent. I know because I have been in small business all my life. I survived the 1980s and the early 1990s, but only just. But hundreds of thousands of small Australian businesses did not survive. Hundreds of thousands of family businesses were destroyed by crushing interest rates and rapidly rising inflation, families were destroyed, homes were lost. This was the pain that was inflicted on the Australian community by the Labor government, yet they have the hide in opposition to lecture us about economic management and unemployment.I was speaking the other day to a business mentoring program in my electorate; one which I am proud to say the federal government started, funded and has recently refunded to the tune of $40,000. I was speaking to the manager of that business mentoring program. He was saying how successful it had been in helping small business recover and, in some cases, in allowing small businesses that were in trouble to expand. I said, `How would you have gone, running a business mentoring program back in the times when interest rates were increasing and when they were running at record rates of 18 and 20 per cent?' He said to me, `We would not have had a hope of rescuing any businesses. At least in the environment we have got now we can refinance these businesses, we can get them back on their feet and we can give them hope. In many cases, we have been able to make them expand and increase employment because of the investment environment we have got.'At the moment we have got an investment environment in this country the like of which we have not seen for 30 years. With the interest rates we have got and stable inflation, businesses can increase and businesses can employ more people. Because that is what we want: we want full-time jobs, we do not want training schemes. The Working Nation scheme—the $12 billion disaster under the Labor government which recycled people from one training scheme to another—did nothing to create full-time jobs because the full-time jobs were not there. Even the part-time jobs were not there. But by managing the economy correctly, by getting our deficit under control, by getting the budget back into the black and back on track—as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) says—Australia now has been able to create jobs.A total of 58,200 new jobs were created just last month, and 42,500 of these jobs were full-time jobs. This means a total of 183,300 new jobs have been created since August 1997, and 75 per cent of these—three-quarters of these—were full-time jobs. This simply shows that the coalition government's policies are working; they are creating a foundation for strong jobs growth. The increase in the number of people in the labour market indicates that there is a growing confidence among job seekers that more jobs are coming through.I had a phone call in my office the other day from a young lady, a constituent of mine, who four months ago asked me for a reference. She had just done her HSC and she was looking for work. That young lady has searched long and hard for a job. It is not easy to find a job when you are young and you leave school. It is still difficult, but the jobs are there. I got a phone call in my office yesterday from that young lady, and she told me that today is her first day at a traineeship. I congratulate her for that. She was excited about that. A chance, a job, a traineeship—one of the 100,000 new traineeships that this government has initiated. She has got a chance now of continuing in the work force. That is happening to hundreds of thousands of other young Australians who are leaving school. In the last two years, the young people who are leaving school now have a chance; they now look forward with optimism.There are also many other young couples I know who have come to me recently. I have got two children aged 21 and 19. They would not like me calling them children; they are young adults. I talk to their friends a lot. If you go back a few years, they did not have a hope of thinking about buying a home. But many of those people who are now in their early 20s—they are not university graduates; they are not high-fliers; they are young Central Coast people with jobs with reasonable incomes with a hope for the future—are now looking at and buying their first homes. We have given that hope back to Australians. Buying your home, a home of your own, is the great Australian dream. It is one that Labor lost; they sacrificed it. It was unattainable; it was something that young people could not even think about when home mortgage rates were running at around 11 to 14 per cent—those sorts of ridiculous rates. They did not have a hope.Two years ago, home loan mortgage rates were 10½ per cent. They are now closer to 6½ per cent—down four per cent—which is a massive drop. Home mortgage rates are now the lowest since 1970. By dropping home mortgage interest rates, this budget has done more for families than anything else that could be done. It represents a saving to Australian families—those with an average home mortgage—of almost $320 per month; a saving of $80 per week, after tax, in their pockets that can be used for their families. The opposition wants to say that this budget has failed to assist families. What greater assistance can you give families than an increase in their weekly income of $80 per week, after tax, simply by reducing the home loan interest rate?This budget is the third stage in repairing the damage done to Australia by Labor. This is a great country with a great future. The Australian community supports what the coalition government have done. We have put this country back on track, we have rectified the deficit, we have rectified the mess that Labor left this country in and we have given hope back to the Australian community. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The discussion is concluded.Miscellaneous3205Motion (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—agreed to:That standing orders 48A, adjournment and next meeting, be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 14 May 1998.Bills3205r4373205Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that further proceedings of the bill be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills3205r5113205Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3205Bill (on motion by Mr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3206r4843206Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3206Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous3206320610000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Howard government to set up an independent, legally constituted public inquiry into the serious allegations which have been made about the nature and extent of the government's role in the waterfront dispute.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills3206r518Billsr516Bills3206Debate resumed.16:29:003206Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—As I was saying before the break, the Labor Party did not conspire in harebrained schemes like Dubai to sack an entire work force and replace it with another. We did not establish a taxpayer slush fund to ensure the sacking of Australian workers and have the highest court in the land confirm an earlier court decision that there appeared to be an illegal activity. Labor's reform process was meaningful, cooperative, inclusive and achievable, as long as all the waterfront parties were involved and pulled their weight.The waterfront will not improve if the people believe that all of its sins are the result of the wharfies or the MUA. I would say to my colleagues opposite: get real! Don't continually parade your ignorance as a badge of honour. Thinking that if you lined up every wharfie in Australia, put them up against a wall and shot them will not reform the waterfront. Problems will still remain because the problems are wide ranging and involve many parties.I have constantly invited members to get hold of the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure entitled Warehouse to wharf. Unfortunately, many of those recommendations have not been implemented. If they had been implemented, many of the problems on the waterfront would no longer exist. This report is a true picture of the waterfront, with too many of the problems not the fault of the workers or the MUA but of truckies, customs, banks, finance institutions, importers, exporters, farmers and, above all, management. Management of the waterfront has been appalling, and not once has this been raised. Have any of the government members who have spoken in this debate so far mentioned this? No, because they are not interested in it or they do not understand it. Perhaps the honourable member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans) will correct this great failing of the government members and put the blame where it belongs: on the management.I cannot for the life of me understand why some of the farmers are buying into this dispute. Most farm produce in Australia goes out to the rest of the world through bulk handling ports. As I have mentioned, I represent one such port: Port Kembla. Bulk handling in this country is at world's best practice. The farm product most likely to go out of Australia in a container is fine wool. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) dem onstrated the point yesterday during the MPI saying:Let us take fine wool shifted by containers at today's price of 650c a kilogram. Stevedoring costs for fine wool are 1c a kilogram.The same point can be made about this government's priorities. The Productivity Commission report—which the minister so relishes—makes it clear that reform of occupational health and safety would be of more benefit to the economy than so-called waterfront reform. Australia could save $20 billion if the minister took occupational health and safety as a serious issue.I am also interested in those opposite, and particularly the bored and ill-informed sitting at home, who ring in to talkback radio with an instant opinion on waterfront issues—`Concerned Gladys' from Coffs Harbour telephoning John Laws. Never have so many people who know so little about a topic been so prepared to parade their ignorance, their bias and their ideological stupidity as they have been on this issue.The participation of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in the events leading up to the termination of the labour hire agreements has yet to be fully explained. But how can you explain that, simultaneously with the appointment of the administrator at 11 p.m. on 7 April 1998, the minister issued a media release strongly supporting the activities of the Patrick group? The minister, we must always bear in mind, knew nothing about this, and surprise, surprise, at 9.30 a.m. the following morning the minister presented a detailed bill in this place providing a funding arrangement to enable Patrick to meet the redundancy of the workers who were sacked. But the minister knew nothing about it. The courts will decide whether the minister was involved in an unlawful conspiracy.I have said before that many of my colleagues opposite come into contact with the waterfront only when on holiday at the beach, yet they come in here with an instant speech and opinion, and it is plainly obvious that they do not know what they are saying. If you want to know about the waterfront, I invite you to at some time come to Port Kembla. If you express an interest, I will arrange a suitable tour. You can talk to the waterfront workers, the MUA, the stevedores and the Port Kembla Port Corporation. I have extended the invitation before and am still waiting for some of the instant experts opposite to get in contact with me. The member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) made reference to my support for the activities on various docks. I did visit Port Kembla many times. I also at many times was at Port Botany, and once I visited Fremantle. I see nothing wrong with supporting workers who are fighting for their jobs—and good on them! I support Australian workers. I will always support Australian workers who are illegally sacked for expressing their just concerns.During the past months the conservatives opposite have been accusing the ABC of bias. Their hatred of the ABC is almost as great as their hatred of the MUA and the miners. So warped is their thinking that any objective reporting is seen to be biased. They are so used to Alan Jones and his ilk. He is their measure of reporting. But did I hear a word about the bias of Alan Jones as he spewed out his hatred of the MUA each and every morning? Did I hear a word about the bias of the editorial of the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Review, whose reporting was so objective that, every time they referred to the MUA, they never referred to them as the MUA but as `those thugs'? This is the objective reporting that you people are so keen on.I will be pleased to vote against this bill. I support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner). I vote against this bill because it is a slush fund bankrolled by the taxpayers of Australia to redeem the illegal sacking of Australian workers which the Howard government was involved in—by the admission of the minister—up to its neck.16:37:003207Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—Firstly, I take up the challenge of the previous speaker, the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). I say to him that I was born and bred in a dockyard town. Some of my family in fact work for Patrick's, and I have been associated with the waterfront for years. I have yet to hear an opposition spokesman on this particular issue actually say that we need waterfront reform, so by implication what they are saying is that it is all okay on the waterfront at the moment.Only one government is serious about bringing Australia into the 21st century. Only one government has the vision to look to the future. Only one government has the leadership skills to show the way towards the future. Only one government has the necessary commitment to focus on what the Australian community really wants. The Australian community wants equity amongst its members. It demands total financial responsibility. It demands responsibility of those people who think they have rights. Our community is sick to death of the political games of cronyism and government for mates for which the previous government was renowned. Only the coalition has the courage and the will to strive for these ends which others talked much about but never delivered. I am talking about tax reform. Only one party is talking about tax reform and only one party will deliver it. I am talking about a budget surplus. Only one party talked about a budget surplus and only one party, one government, has delivered it. I am also talking about waterfront reform and this government will deliver it.Today I join my colleagues in full support of the legislation which is before us—the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 . These two bills are directed at the industry to help it provide much needed reform on the waterfront. This legislation is based on fairness and equity, with one rider. The rider is that we must have waterfront reform; reform that the other side in this particular place does not consider we need. This legislation is meant to assist industry to reform the waterfront. It is meant to help those workers who choose or are selected to help reduce manning levels to allow them to get what they are owed in a retrenchment package.When the coalition speaks of tax reform, we mean it. When we spoke of industrial relations reform, we actually meant it—and we did it. We said we would bring the budget back into surplus within our first term. We meant it and we have done it. When we said there would be no tax increases for three years we meant it, and there have not been tax increases. Now we say we must have waterfront reform, and we mean it. We mean it because it is one of the most fundamental reform requirements to send Australia into the 21st century.As you would realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are an island nation, yet the modern world says we must focus on smart products and industries. The modern world says information systems and technology will be the major industry indicators and drivers in our future. The modern world says that we must become knowledge based rather than manufacturing based workers. The modern world demands that a new work force is needed to handle the demands of the 21st century; a new work force with new management techniques and new employee-employer relationships and requirements.Yet although the modern world will place huge demands upon our structures and break down many of our national boundaries, we cannot forget that the commodities of the modern world will still need to be shipped. When all the workers are knowledge based they will still need to eat, they will need clothing and they will need essentials which can only be brought to them through the ports of Australia. No amount of modernisation will change that, so we need efficient wharves. Have we got them at the moment? The answer clearly is no, we have not. We need productive wharves. Have we got them? The answer clearly is no, we have not. We need wharves clear of rorts, racketeering and other unproductive practices. Have we got wharves and ports like that? The answer clearly is no, we have not.Is it just the coalition saying that we need reform? It clearly is not. The Australian community wants and demands reform. The business community wants and demands reform. The farm community wants and demands reform. The majority of Australian workers want reform on the waterfront because of what they have had to go through over the last 10 to 15 years. The shadow minister says there is no need to reform the wharves, that reform has already been made, yet here are just a few examples of what other people are saying. In the Financial Review on 19 February 1996, the Chairman of the international shipping company P&O, Lord Sterling, said:Without question there has to be improved productivity. You only have to compare with the cost of moving containers in other active industrial countries in the world—Australia is far behind.In its editorial on 19 February 1998, the Far Eastern Economic Review said:In the past few years Australians have been fond of talking about Australia joining Asia. It is becoming more clear that this might first depend on them having their dock workers becoming part of the 20th Century.The 20th century! Not the 21st century but the 20th century. I have another comment saying:Unfortunately, the process of reform stalled for some time.In acknowledging this, there are some important lessons to be learnt from why reform stalled.Where all this broke down, I suspect, was the excessive faith placed in enterprise bargaining itself to deliver on going improvement.That is another person who is critical of the so-called reform process. I was quoting Mr Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, the opposition spokesman on this particular issue.This legislation is directed at the key stakeholders in the waterfront. It clearly says, `Here is some help to address your overmanning on the wharves. Here is some help to provide the waterfront workers with some security of funding for their early retirement or retrenchment. Here is an opportunity. Take up the challenge and prove to Australia that we do have a waterfront which is better than other ports in the world when clearly, under the current arrangements, it is not.'Why does the government want reform? Let me raise some of the problems associated with the monopoly of the work force. It is a work force that says, `No ticket, no start on these docks.' It is a work force that says, `If you're not part of the union you don't and can't work.' All these principles of the union challenge the very essence of the Australian community values of a fair go. Workers do not get a fair go on Australian wharves if they do not belong to a union.Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you of the need of the modern world, a world which in any enterprise requires a modern way of managing. Gone should be the days of confrontation. Gone should be the days of `us against them'. Gone should be the days of management not listening to their workers. Gone should be the days of union bullyboy tactics. Gone are the days when the working stakeholders of an enterprise do not care about what happens to that enterprise.The modern 21st century enterprise demands that industrial age thinking of confrontation be a thing of the past. Modern management techniques, like talking to employees, are becoming more and more popular, and I think they are banned on the docks—things like allowing employees to make decisions about their workplace, to contribute to the planning of the enterprise and to have individual say. But the waterfront is not like that. The waterfront is based upon confrontation and has been for over 50 years. The waterfront—despite the employers wanting to speak directly to their employees—is denied these opportunities. I outline just a few of the problems on the docks: `Patrick is obliged to employ 50 per cent more people than required' because the MUA says they have to allocate the labour. Here is another:The company cannot "talk" to an employee unless a union representative is present.This is communication in the modern workplace: unless you have a union representative present you cannot talk to anyone who is an employee of yours. I continue:The company cannot suspend employees for disciplinary reasons.So if an employee has a fight and kicks someone in the head or whatever, the employee cannot be disciplined.The company cannot send letters to employees' homes.Why can you not send a Christmas card to an employee's home?Employees are paid by the company to attend monthly union meetings. At any given time, up to 10% of the workforce is unable to perform all functions because of temporary or permanent "disability."Patrick pays "make up pay" for employees on workers compensation.A union official visits a site at least once a day, whether requested by employees or not.MUA will not agree to further reform unless Patrick agrees to a guaranteed minimum wage of $75,000, plus improved superannuation benefits.The company receives claims for damage to equipment and cargo totalling $3 million per year.These are just some of the problems associated with the waterfront. It is clear that we need waterfront reform. Those opposite say we do not need reform. They want to continue with the rorts and the racketeering. It can only happen when a coalition government supports the reform. Under Labor there was plenty of talk and plenty of money but no action. Labor is hamstrung on this issue because it is ideologically locked into supporting the MUA. The Labor Party, therefore, supports the rorts of the MUA. The Labor Party, therefore, supports the racketeering of the MUA. The Labor Party supports the criminal activity of the MUA. The Labor Party supports victimisation, personal threats, personal abuse and physical confrontation. The Labor Party has zero leadership on this issue and also other issues because it is locked into what the union, the MUA, has to say.This legislation is only part of the process. The government wants waterfront reform and this legislation will help that process. I call upon all stakeholders—even those of my colleagues on the other side who are ignorant of the fact that waterfront reform should happen—to accept the challenge of making waterfront reform happen. Not only management but also employees—all stakeholders—need to accept the challenge of waterfront reform. They need to enter the 21st century and alter their industrial age thinking of confrontation, the `us against them' attitude, with the unions' stand to get solidarity, forgetting about the enterprise. They must enter the 21st century and take up this challenge—not for themselves but for the nation. That is something which those opposite do not consider.16:49:003210Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I listened to the mention of Lord Sterling and dignity and honour in the management of waterfront affairs. My friend, go and do a bit of reading and learn something about how the shipping industry of this world works.3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—We're not talking about shipping. We're talking about the docks.HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—If you do not have ships, you do not need a waterfront. There is major business in shipping. Look at the record of the industry and Lord Sterling's record. I think you will want to distance yourself from that a little later. I was alarmed to hear members opposite, including the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), expressing support for a spectacle I never dreamt in my life I would see in this country—midnight raids on workplaces, dogs, balaclavaed goons, batons and mace sprays. This is our Australia. That might be your Australia—Howard's ugly Australia—but I can tell you that no-one in the part of Australia that I come from wants a bar of that. That is not our Australian way of life.What you have rendered this country is a sin that will be visited upon you forever. You have created, by your acts and by your words in this place, a spectacle that all the world has gazed upon day after day—here in Australia, the so-called land of democracy and of equality—balacalvaed goons, police batons, private police, mace sprays and evicting people from their workplace in the middle of the night. I thought something better of you, my dear friend. I do regard you as a friend, but on that you have done this country enormous damage.This did not happen by the actions of conspirator Corrigan alone. It involved the leadership of this government. This whole exercise was engineered and orchestrated out of this building. It began here, it was conducted from here and it remains here. I feel ashamed, as an Australian, to see that kind of practice and behaviour coming out of this place. You will all wear the ignominy of it—as long as you are around and as long as you live. Never before in the history of this country has there been such behaviour, such action—not against attackers, not against invaders, but against fellow Australians at work, law-abiding citizens carrying out their work in accordance with their awards. One might not be happy with their results and say that we could do better, but that is a different issue.There is no justification for the kind of behaviour we have seen over recent weeks, engineered and orchestrated by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), the Treasurer (Mr Costello), the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) and some nine government departments, at least, that were involved. And you call for a fair go! The government itself, from the Prime Minister down, is locked in wedlock with character Corrigan, and character Corrigan's main partner is Peter Scanlon of Elders fame. Just ask any corporate person about Scanlon and Corrigan and the events of recent weeks. Every single person has said to me, `That was wrong. We want no part of that. That is not corporate Australia.' Nobody in corporate Australia wants to be party to that, but this government is. This government is locked into it. It is part of it, and it could not have happened without the approval, support and identification of the government.The member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans) referred to efficient wharves, bulk wharves and bulk cargoes. We are world's best practice. You as a government have maligned all of those workers and their families. Remember this: when you malign a working man and woman in this country, you malign their kids and their relatives. When their kids go to school, people say, `You are a wharfie.' Have a think about what you are doing with your animosity, your vindictiveness and your hatred. It is a manic hatred. I never thought I would ever see anything like that in this country. I never thought I would see it coming from people on the other side, but it has happened. We have seen the appalling and fearful spectacles of those police batons, balaclava-clad goons, private police, guard dogs, mace sprays, midnight raids on law-abiding Australian citizens working in their workplaces. It is an appalling spectacle which the rest of the world has now tabbed Australia for.Those actions were aided, abetted and endorsed by this government. Those actions carried in them a malevolence unseen before in this country. We have never seen from the government that kind of behaviour. It was vindictiveness and malevolence. I have served in this place with other conservative governments. Prime Minister Fraser was regarded as being a tough, hard Prime Minister and a tough conservative, and he was in many ways. Conditions were worse then than they are now, but there is no way in the world that he would have been party to this kind of behaviour.Let me turn to the waterfront places, what they are worth and what they do. My port of Newcastle is the largest coal export port in the world and the most efficient export port in the world in coal. Did you say a word of thanks? Were there were any exceptions? No. You bagged everybody and you blackguarded everybody. I will turn to container handling later, because as you labour in pursuit of your own mythology you will come to realise, weeks and months afterwards, how wrong you were and what damage you have done to this country. When you vilify trade unions, you vilify working men and women in this country—decent, honourable people—about their jobs and their working conditions.Have a look at the number of members in this building under charges, going before the courts charged with rorts. And you have the temerity to be talking about people in their workplaces and to be sending in dogs and guards to root them out at midnight. This behaviour is unheard of. You have set Australian against Australian. We have seen a long campaign by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. He has vilified, pilloried and blackguarded these people, their families and their incomes. We have had falsity after falsity—a determined, planned campaign, as other speakers on this side have elaborated earlier. I will not go into it.The issue is not waterfront productivity; it never has been waterfront productivity. It is about the manic hatred of the conservatives opposite for waterfront workers, and it dates back to the last century, to the great maritime strike of 1890 when it was the same struggle between the farmers and the waterfront bosses. People were working on the wharves like horses. It was the same thing. You have maintained that rage and that hatred for over 100 years, and it has burst out in this escapade over recent weeks. But the driving issue is that manic hatred of maritime workers and their families.There have been two inquiries into the waterfront. The problem with the waterfront for the people who use it is that they are not particularly concerned about it. The member for Corangamite has sat through hearings and heard evidence and knows that very well. That is why I am affronted with the hypocrisy he goes on with. I read from the preface to Warehouse to wharf, the original report in 1992. We asked specifically of the representatives of the Australian Shipping Users Group at the inquiry why there was such apathy, such inertia and such ignorance directed towards the operation of the transport chain to and from the waterfront from their membership. They said the following:It is not a case of ignorance/disinterest as much as a question of priorities. Individual firms do not see the waterfront as a key issue compared with other more pressing problems (maintaining sales, avoiding industrial disputes) and so do not accord it, or its problems, a high priority.Others can read from the rest of the preface of that report. We did a follow-up report in December 1995, and again we had the same situation. Whilst this might get the knickers of those opposite in a knot, to the people in the business, other than the big players, it is a small percentage of the total cost of landing their product in a marketed destination. It ranges from 2½ per cent to four per cent.I wish they were more involved. We tried all sorts of ways to get them involved in the inquiry, to tell us what their problems were so that we could address those problems, but they would not come. At the end of the day, it was not a priority. When you go back to the brazen attacks of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on the MUA members and their families, heaping ignominy upon ignominy, then to his brazen assertions on cost and productivity, I ask the question: how much does it cost to move a container across the Australian wharf? I asked the minister. I gave him a series of questions on the Notice Paper. Question No. 2842 was asked on 2 April. If there were a $100 reduction per container in the stevedoring charge, that would amount to five-eighths of one cent, a fraction over half a cent, per kilo of beef which sells for $20 to $30 per kilo in Japan and Korea. That was the objective set by Don McGauchie. He was going to cut the charge by $100. That is a great deal for the battling farmers like the blokes from East Gippsland the other day.What did the minister say? I asked him how much meat a container held. I know what it holds—about 16,000 kilos. But he said, `It can hold 15,000 to 18,000, depending on whether it's carcasses or cut beef.' When I asked him, `Is it a fact that $100 per container reduction equals five-eighths of one cent?' he did not answer. He avoided it. He could not answer. He said:The price of beef in the export market is determined by a number of transport related factors, only one of which is the stevedoring charge.Why then have we heard so much sound and noise about the container handling rate? He has discounted it himself because that exposed the fact that that is not the objective. The objective is to try to abolish, to wreck the Maritime Union of Australia, about which the government has this manic hatred.I asked the minister similar questions, and time does not permit me to go through all of them. But if you read the Hansard, you will see that I asked the same questions about stevedoring charges across Australian ports. I asked what were the stevedoring charge at Brisbane for a container, either loading or unloading. What did he tell me? This is the glorious answer:Charges for stevedoring containers by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients.That is, `I, the minister, do not know, and I cannot tell the parliament.' So I asked him the same question about Port Botany and received the same answer—`Don't know'. Melbourne, Fremantle, Adelaide—`Don't know; commer cial-in-confidence'. I do know that the rate on the two major ports is around $190 to $280 per container. Even I can find that out by ringing up and asking what the card rate is. But the actual paid rate can be something substantially less than that.The waterline series—and this series, arising out of our Warehouse to wharf report in 1992, was prepared by the Bureau of Transport and Communication Economics—puts in an across the Australian ports charge of $188. Let us take $188. Let us see where the priorities are.Let us look at the stevedoring charge and ask what other charges are involved in moving a container. I will tell you: on exports, the stevedoring charge for the Port of Brisbane from July to December was $188; customs broker's fees, $78; road transport charges, $179—a total of $561 per container. If we go to Sydney, the road transport charges are $288 per container. If we go to Melbourne, the road transport charges are $252 a container. Why haven't we heard a word about a tax on the transport workers or on the individually owned transport companies? The charge there is much greater than the stevedoring charge.So you go to the next question, and you say, `Okay, a container of wool is 20,000 kilos.' What does that work out at? It works out at one cent per kilo. What is fine wool selling for? It is selling for 650c to 675c per kilo.How stupid do you really think Australian men and women are? You are trying to convince the public that a reduction of half a cent per kilo in the container handling charge for a kilo of wool is somehow dramatically going to increase—Mr McArthur interjecting—HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—You are the mathematician, my dear friend; you are a farmer—you grow it. You are trying to convince the public that a half a cent reduction per kilo in the container charge for handling wool is somehow dramatically going to increase the sales and open up new markets abroad. That is nonsense, and it again exposes this government for what it is really about. It is a vendetta against Maritime Union people which carries, from the mythology, right back to the last century.At the same time, as I went through those questions, I asked also, `How many containers are handled at Webb Dock?' I wanted to know what Patrick was doing down there. I asked the minister—and he should know. He should be the source of best advice to this nation on matters maritime. That is his responsibility; that is what he should be. I said to him, `How many 20-foot and 40-foot containers were loaded and unloaded at Webb Dock by Patrick Stevedores in 1995-96 and in 1996-97?'—reasonable, pertinent, relevant questions. What did he tell me? He said:Information relating to the operations of any individual company, in this case Patrick Stevedores, is considered commercial in confidence and is not available for publication.That is, he does not know what the container charges are across any port in Australia, and he does not even know how many containers are handled by Patrick at Webb Dock, which has been the scene of the debacle and the disaster wrought upon Australian maritime workers and their families.The government's malevolence towards the MUA is being recognised by all Australians. Let me say again in my region that people have gathered in the streets. The union membership of the MUA has not multiplied by 50 over the past weeks. It is because Australians out there have come to realise that, if this government can engineer and orchestrate an activity with a corporate raider to contrive the bankruptcy of its own company so as to evade its obligations towards its own employees, nobody's job in this country is safe. That is the message that people outside are now starting to understand.This government is aiding and abetting and using taxpayers money to enable a company to contrive the bankruptcy of its own operating companies so as to evade its obligations towards its own employees. That cannot be allowed to continue in this country, and the Federal Court will have a deal to say about that when the conspiracy charges are progressed during the year.But have a look at the collection of people: paper shuffler extraordinaire, Chris Corrigan; his partner of Elders fame, Peter Scanlon; Derren Gillespie of the minister's office, a prime star; Dr Stephen Webster of the minister's office, a prime star. So we can go down the list of people involved. At least nine government departments are involved in this chicanery, in this evil wrongdoing against Australian working men and women.If we go back to the breach of the Corporations Act, we find—unheard of in this nation—an action where the government, having responsibility for the law being obeyed and followed and being responsible for the Corporations Act, is itself party to a contrived bankruptcy of a company, a breach of the Corporations Act, so as to enable that company to avoid its obligations towards its employees. That will not be accepted across Australia, and that is why you are seeing thousands of people out on the streets—because people have woken up to what this government is about.There is no place in Australian corporate life for the likes of Corrigan. I cannot say more of Scanlon, other than to look at his history, his associates, his performances and what I am told by other members of corporate Australia.This country and the men and women of this country—decent working men and women—cannot tolerate a situation where this government puts everybody's career and entitlements at risk. The National Farmers Federation say that they want greater competition. That is a farce. The reason there is little competition in this country in terminal operations is that the market is so small. I ask myself: where are the Don McGauchies of the past? Where are they? Why hasn't the Meat and Livestock Corporation or the Grain Authority and its equivalents in the past invested in one of the terminal operators? Why haven't they become involved? They have had every opportunity to become shareholders. They should have become shareholders. We looked at it; I looked at it as a minister; we looked at it as members of the committee when we carried out our inquiries. But, no, they were not party to that. And now for the National Farmers Federation to say that they want competition is to blatantly mislead working farmers in this country.It is about corporate farmers. They are an organisation sitting there with the hired hands they have got and Dr Wendy Craik spouting out some of the rubbish I have seen in the circular she has put around; somebody who has a doctrinaire approach to what working on the waterfront is about. They are going to have a lot to answer for. And where was Marshal Fels when Patrick's corporation and P&O mounted an action against the Port Corporation of Melbourne for even considering that OOCL could become a third terminal operator in Melbourne? Where was Marshal Fels then? He was sleeping under his blanket. He came out from under his blanket only when he heard a bit and thought that maybe there was a chance to get stuck into the workers again, to get stuck into the unions.This whole action is about de-unionisation and destruction of the MUA. There is room for improvement; this is not the way to achieve that improvement. The achievement in the bulk trades was done by cooperation without any loss of time. We can do better on containers but this government have totally misrepresented the benefits likely to flow from it and their importance. They do not reveal information. What they have done, the acts they have committed and the sins they have visited on the people of this country will never be forgotten. (Time expired)17:09:003214Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—You can wonder how, after 13 years of a previous Labor government, of which the member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) was a minister and under which Australia ended, as a government, an additional $90,000 million in debt, he can stand up here and say, `It doesn't really matter if something is too expensive as long as it is only about a cent a kilo.' That is absolute rubbish; that is sending the Australian nation down the tube as they so deliberately tried to do in the way they managed this country—spend the money; don't worry about the problems; just borrow it and leave it to the kids who do not vote to pay off some time in the future.It is the greatest amount of rubbish to put the argument that the cost does not matter. It is the greatest amount of rubbish to say, `We had an inquiry and no-one would come along to give evidence.' If you were in the business of importing things at that time under the Labor government and you gave evidence to the committee about some of the truths of the situation, what happened to your containers? They either never got off the wharf, they got dropped in the ocean or they were snatched up or pilfered. That is why they would not come; the people were terrified. And the member for Shortland says that he is ashamed to be an Australian when he sees dogs taken down to the waterfront. Has he ever asked those people why they thought they needed dogs? They needed dogs because they were likely to be physically attacked or shot. And that was the standard of performance down there.The reality of the facts is that 400 people who had only minimum training have over a period of time been doing the job of 2,000 workers—1,400 full-time workers and 600 part-time workers. Who were the 600 part-time workers? The people who had been paid $400 million by the previous Labor government to be redundant. They were paid the money and they came back as casual workers. You can put any sort of rhetoric you like up in this place but you cannot escape the facts.Let me put another myth to death. By far the greatest value of farm production in Australia leaves this country by container. When you start to look at volumes, what do we send out in bulk? We send out grain. Look at the statistics and see what that represents in terms of agricultural production. Do we bundle up all the horticulture and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? Do we bundle up all the meat and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? Do we bundle up all the wool and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? No, we do not. I do not have the exact figures, but I would say that the ratio of container to bulk would be two or three to one in terms of export value of commodities of agriculture out of this country. What do we get for a tonne of wheat? A couple of hundred dollars.And let us remember how that industry worked not so long ago when 16 people turned up to watch a ship being automatically loaded when none of them were needed. Some of my constituents raised this issue. They say that things are much better now. I say, `Yes, you have got only three people you do not need now and you used to have 16.' That battle was fought out some time ago. And please remember that in those days they used to stop the whole conveyor system for about half an hour so that they could have a 10-minute smoko. There is all this argument that it does not matter if it costs a little more—it is only dollars that make the difference between an Australian exporter getting a contract and somebody from another country getting the contract, not the thousands of dollars that you want to build into this argument.But I have made the point in this place before that it is only 10 per cent of the problem. The Australian wharfies have so disenchanted the world shipping trade that all of the most committed and the most competitive will not come to Australia; they will not be seen dead here. I gave the example the other day in this place of Hardie's fibrolite pipes in my state closing down because they could not compete on the export market where the Asian subsidiaries had the orders. They could do so by the hard work of their own employees but when it came to shipping costs the ships that were prepared to come to Australia wanted double.Of course, their Asian subsidiaries could not understand it. They said, `We'll get shipping company so-and-so to come down and do it. They'll charge you half of that and we can meet our orders and make a profit.' They got onto shipping company so-and-so and it said, `We don't go to Australia. Why do you think we're competitive?' That is $500 a container that we are paying to pay the tithe to pay the ships that will come here. That is what we are paying: $500 a container. You check the container rate for California to Tokyo and check the container rate for Australia to Tokyo and you will find our price is double.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—You don't know.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—We do know: it is double. The reality is that we are paying that for bulk cargoes too. They simply will not have the companies that would do it cheapest—HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—On a point order, Mr Deputy Speaker—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You have not got a point of order. It would be frivolous.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order!HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—This is not for you. You just sit down.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have sat down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Does the member for Shortland have a point of order?HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Yes. I am asking: is it in order for him to make that assertion when his minister has been asked those questions on the Notice Paper and declines to answer?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—I am asking your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Shortland was heard in silence during his contribution. I ask for the same privilege for the member for O'Connor.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have made an undertaking to speak for 10 minutes so a few more of you blokes could get a chance; now I will speak for 20.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will speak on the matter before the chair through the chair.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me repeat what I have just said to you: the Australian waterfront has been so costly and so unreliable that every shipping company that comes here turns around and says, `We'll just charge you double.' The statistics are that Australia has approximately two per cent of world shipping freight and 23 per cent of the industrial action. Do not tell me these shipping companies do not charge accordingly—and they charge it on bulk freights and they further disadvantage workers in Australia. Every time an Australian exporter loses a contract on internationally competitive prices, Australian workers lose jobs. Every time they put the freight rate up and every time we have this little bit extra that comes through the inefficiencies of container handling, some working wife pays more at the supermarket. Of course it cannot be avoided and of course it is ridiculous to argue that it is just a little bit too dear, just a little bit too expensive, just a little bit too unreliable, just a little bit too dishonest. Of course no government can say that that is appropriate for the economy of its country.We are no longer servicing the world with sailing clippers. We are no longer in a position where it was always easier to make it in Australia than get it from somewhere else. If you want to get some woollen jumpers knitted today, you can dial in a computer code to an overseas knitting company and they will start knitting them on your order, and they will be coming out here the next day. How can Australians be competitive and get economies of scale when in fact they cannot compete? The examples have been given. The business that a cement manufacturer lost to New Zealand is just one example, and on what? On port charges and freight rates. New Zealand gets the highly competitive shipping companies going there now because they guarantee them speedy turnaround.Let us get back to this so-called conspiracy. There are two things in the same place in the Workplace Relations Act: one says you cannot be sacked because you are in a union and the other says you cannot be sacked because you are not in a union. When it comes to conspiracy theories and when it comes to court cases, I wonder if there is going to be a counterclaim that says the Australian Labor Party conspired with John Coombs and the MUA to stop non-union workers having a job.RH4KERRMr Kerr—If you want to take the action, feel free.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, I will feel free. I hope they can hire you as the lawyer because I would win—and I have no legal training. You are so dumb.Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The reality is that this is the same principle. Why was it necessary for a group of Australians, wanting to create some job opportunities and wanting to give some people some relatively unsophisticated training, to even contemplate leaving the country to do it?Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Dopey chap! Go outside and say that! The realities are that they did it because it was impossible to do it within Australia because a mob of gangsters called the MUA was going to prevent it. The intelligence of a person who says that any Australian employer would pay air fares, overseas accommodation et cetera for the privilege of breaking the law! He would have to have as much brains in his head as he has hair on top of it.The reality is that they turned around and did it because at the time it seemed the only opportunity, and the proof positive of that was what happened when the next step was taken and they used Webb Dock for that training. Were they allowed to just go down to Webb Dock and train on some underutilised cranes? No, they had to actually bring the people in by sea. They had to give them the protection of security guards with dogs—and we saw why.Let me say something else about redundancies and jobs: this dispute is a lot more about the job of John Coombs and the protection of his winery and the job of Paddy Crumlin, whom they have sent over to Western Australia to stiffen up the local troops—they would not rely on some local spokesman in Western Australia, they had to have Paddy Crumlin. When he came here and he had his suit on—not his television gear—he also had two Mont Blanc pens in his pocket. Who paid for that? Some working Australians. The reality of the MUA is that, if you want to work on the waterfront, you have to pay a tithe. You are not entitled to go there and work unless you have paid money to the MUA; you have to buy a job, and I thought that went out when you were buying things.Let us talk about the law. It is funny how the MUA and, in the past, some other trade unions used to see the law as something you used if it was in your favour but if it was not in your favour you ignored it. This time they thought it might be appropriate to use the law. But, of course, they did not stop there. They went around the countryside blockading roads and denying other people their right to earn a living: owner-driver truckies and people who had stuff stranded on the waterfront. They blockaded the road, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) went down there and they encouraged these people to blockade those roads. So one day you want the protection of the law and the courts and the next to you want to thumb your nose at the laws of Australia.They talk about it being a shame because some dogs were there. I am ashamed that there are still Australians who believe that they have a prior right to stop other law-abiding citizens driving down the road. The great pity of it is that, by the smirks I am getting from the shadow minister at the table, he does not understand that. He does not understand that there are 18 million Australians and there are 2,000 or 3,000 members of the MUA and apparently the 18 million are second-class citizens. That is the reality. No, don't you tell me that it is appropriate to stop people on the road. You go and try it somewhere else because you are in dispute with someone. We do have courts. The unions have been there; they have had a pyrrhic victory. Actually, I think the High Court decision was quite remarkable and was given considerably tongue in cheek, and we will see what the outcome of that is. But the reality is that you want to use the courts and you want to defy the law, and you want to do both at the same time. As members of parliament, it is disgraceful that these people think this is appropriate. Their idea of protest is, `It is all right if I think it is all right,' but if other people have an opposite point of view and they would like to protest and they want to blockade, as they did the Premier of New South Wales, they think it is dreadful. I thought it was dreadful. I also think blockading other roads is dreadful. I understand that we have got a law that says that a road is a common place and everybody can use it, but they get up here and they whinge about dogs and they whinge about security guards, yet when I talked to the farmers they said to me, `We are still thinking of going through that blockade but we have got problems because—'RH4KERRMr Kerr—What about those trucks around Parliament House?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I did not approve.Mr Kerr interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Denison.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—And that was wrong, was it? You had better get consistent. The reality is that nobody was stopped from coming into Parliament House. But I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when they were stopped from going into parliament house, and that was when a mob of BLF goons stopped members of parliament getting into the Western Australian parliament. And it was all over a myth. They reckoned that the end of the earth was coming. The laws they were protesting about had passed and nobody noticed the difference.The reality is that all of these things have happened. In my last couple of minutes, let us get back to the reality. The reality is that the most competitive shipping companies in the world treat Australia as a war zone. They tax us accordingly with their prices.RH4KERRMr Kerr—A war zone?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, and it is published in the papers and well understood. They charge us freight rates that are double what they charge in other parts of the world. Why? Because of the intransigence and the impossible requirements that Australian wharfies put on them. As one shipowner said to me, `In a war zone we might lose a ship from time to time, but in Australia we never know when we are going to get them back, at $20,000 a day.'It is this opposition that are egging on foreign unions to refuse to unload Australian product. They are very self-satisfied about it. That is nice and Australian too. I say that those countries should be retaliated against if their governments do not realise that whatever disputes happen in Australia are Australia's business, and those companies should ensure that our trade with them is as open as it should be. They should unload that ship in America, and the fact that American citizens are refusing to do so should be condemned by the opposition. They won't. As I said, they are totally smug about it. They think, `We will teach you a lesson. Our 3,000 Australians have more rights than all the people that have produced that beef and all the meatworkers that have killed it and all the other people that have obtained employment from that particular process.' They do not want them to have their jobs if it means that the last bastion of union dominance is about to be at risk. These are the facts about the way these people carry on. The facts are there. Four hundred people with a minimum of training were doing what 1,400 had been doing.Dr Lawrence interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You should not even open your mouth in this place until you have got through your perjury case.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for O'Connor should direct his remarks through the chair.Dr Lawrence interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It was all right for you to sit here a minute ago and demean Scanlon and everybody else. You see, you have got a few little problems yourself.Mr Holding interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You can come outside and tell me that. We are about the same age. The reality is that these people are defending the indefensible, and it is absolute rubbish for these people to stand up and tell this parliament that it may be all right because it is not all that expensive per kilo. The Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) told us the other day that the excessive cost to the Australian waterfront is $100 million a year. That is what happens when you multiply all those kilos of wool and all those kilos of other freight by the number of cents that they want to continue to put as the basis for their argument. It is outrageous. The government is right, and I support its legislation.17:29:003219Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—That was a classic case of the confusion of ends and means. All of us would want to see improvements in every workplace in this country to ensure that we get the best value for every input of labour and capital that we possibly can. But we do not justify that by the means that this government has used. Using the arguments of the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), he would, I am sure, quite happily have defended the moral rights of slave traders and the exploitation of child labour. You got a good outcome; it was very cheap—but there were people around this world who saw that as immoral. So let us look at this dispute and let us look at what this legislation is all about, not confusing ends and means and actually embracing a decent stance.The events of 7 April will go down in history in this country; they have already. There were mass sackings around Australia. Let us remember what happened. Over 2,000 workers were locked out of their workplace in the middle of the night. In Fremantle 200 people lost their jobs. This included permanent and casual staff, the fully trained, the newly entered and apprentices. People who had just been taken on by Patrick got the sack. This was enforced by security guards with dogs.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Yes, we should protest about it. Absolutely! If there are any decent standards in this country we should protest about it. Not only were they there with their dogs on chains but they subsequently used mace. They certainly had canisters of it in Fremantle. They had police back-up where needed. The workers in Fremantle who were surprised and stayed in their workroom had to be escorted from the waterfront by police because of the behaviour of the security guards that night. They were frogmarched out of their place of work and locked out securely for over a month. There was no notice given, no letter of dismissal—in fact, many of them still to this day have not had a letter of dismissal—and no reasons given to them by their employer. As a result of those actions, there were families suddenly without income and many of them with dismal prospects of future employment. Some of the older workers, having lost their jobs, could look forward to no job in the future.That is what happened on the night of 7 April. The next day Australians around this country woke up to find that their country—not the government's country but our country—had changed irrevocably and for the worse. Every newspaper, every television set and every radio station carried ominous images and sounds of dogs straining on chains, of security guards in black—images that are reminiscent of the totalitarian regimes of the past and present—keeping workers behind locked gates and fences. Remember, this was no strike. These people were locked out of their workplaces. In doing so, the employer and the government beside it breached longstanding principles of freedom of association—principles that we are signed up to in our own laws and in international agreements. The right to organise was defied and international labour standards were violated by these actions.By that time it was absolutely clear that this was not just the actions of Patrick; this was part of a government inspired conspiracy—and I use that word because the government has not been prepared to come out and publicly say precisely what it did and when it did it. You have to conclude that that is because it was engaged in these clandestine activities. The first indication of that, of course, was when the Dubai work force was sprung.But, following those events of 7 April, the first thing that showed how clearly the government was involved was the midnight press release of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) welcoming the move. Barely had Patrick made the announcement than the minister responsible for workplace reform was out in the public arena, somewhere close to midnight, announcing that he thought it was a wonderful thing. He had really not had the time to estimate it, if he had really been distant from it; nonetheless, he immediately knew that it was fantastic. Of course, the next day we saw the introduction of this legislation just a few hours after the sackings. How was that possible unless they had been involved right from the start as part of the planning process?On that day we had images that I will never forget—the leering smirks and the backslapping between the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). The Prime Minister did back down a little later when he realised that appearing to be so joyful about people losing their jobs was perhaps not so smart. But, at the time, when questioned, the Prime Minister made it very clear that the reason these people had lost their jobs, their cardinal sin—it was not because of anything they had done or had not done; it was not about productivity—was that they were members of a union. That was why they were sacked! Because they had the temerity to join together to work for decent wages and conditions.The minister, of course, during all this time was triumphant and the incredible Corrigan was chewing up the airwaves with his deceit and his propaganda. He has been a bit more silent of late, after some court decisions that will make his future very uncomfortable. We have had later revelations by the disgruntled ex-Dubai co-conspirators and the infamous Dr Webster. I am sure we are going to hear a lot more about that.Before long, not only did we see that these workers had been sacked and that the government endorsed it; we also had non-union replacements appearing out of the National Farmers Federation front at Webb Dock. The union's warning about that was dismissed. They were told they were paranoid, that this was not going on, but of course it was. And it was the result of a corporate scam which was announced with pride by Lang Corporation on 8 April, the day after the sackings. The Lang Corporation said at the time that the four Patrick companies had been put into receivership and that the primary employers of the 1,400 waterfront workers sacked the previous night had accumulated losses of $56 million. Accumulated losses! They had had funds ripped out of them. The company owed them money. These subsidiaries, they said, are the primary employers of labour in the Patrick group. They thought that was a very clever manoeuvre and were patting themselves on the back. It had been organised some time before, again with the understanding and agreement of the government.At the time, they said they were going to resume stevedoring activities at the affected ports within 48 hours. They were ready to roll. The big plan was in operation through contracts with new labour suppliers—in particular, the National Farmers Federation. They said that they had entered into a number of alternative specialist service contracts. Specialist is right—using former soldiers who were part of the failed Dubai operation.Lang said in pride that its balance sheet had not been affected by the move into administration of the four companies. Game, set and match, they thought. Far from it. That scam has now been pulled apart and will be the subject of further court action. This particular scam was resonant of the bottom-of-the-harbour scheme. It is no accident that Mr Costigan came out and made the comparisons.But the Lang shares climbed steadily—at least until recently when they started to drop off pretty dramatically—and those new workers began unloading ships around the country, albeit at a snail's pace. Some of the claims that have been made by members opposite are extraordinary. I stood on the Fremantle waterfront and watched the new work force, not surprisingly, unload containers at the rate of five, six or seven per hour—nothing like the rates claimed.Members of the MUA around the country, other unions and fair-minded people all over the place, supported them in forming pickets to prevent the cargo leaving Patrick's. So, yes, they did get them off some ships, but they were piling up on the waterfront as people defended their rights to be members of a union and, importantly, their right to work, their right to be treated decently, their right to a future. International support was offered and civil rights campaigners everywhere objected to injunctions that were being placed against peaceful picketing. Some of those injunctions were subsequently overturned. These were events that no-one ever thought they would see in Australia; they are certainly events that I never thought I would see in Australia.I am very pleased that the courts moved to insist on the reinstatement of the workers, justly, and concluded that there was an arguable case that a conspiracy to act illegally had occurred. That matter will, of course, be before the courts later. Right at this moment all of the workers around this country on the waterfront are still subject to manoeuvring by Patrick and the government. But, fortunately, most of them are back at work, albeit insecurely.I think it is worth going back through some of the elements of that conspiracy—the arguable case for the conspiracy. It clearly began with the briefing paper that went to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business in March 1997. He was advised, and probably did not need much advising, in the following terms:Stevedores would need to activate well prepared strategies to dismiss their work force and replace them with another quickly in a way that limited the prospect of, for example, the commission ordering the reinstatement of the current work force.It was designed to get round their own legislation, both the spirit and the fact of it.Following this, there were a series of secret meetings, and expensive reports and consultancies. Polling and media strategies were developed, and they are not available to the Australian public, even though the taxpayers paid for them. The object of all of these was to sack the entire Patrick work force and possibly, initially, even the P&O work force. The conspiracy involved training a replacement work force. First we had the Dubai shemozzle and then the National Farmers Federation front at Webb Dock. `Oh no, this is not just to train a work force,' they said, `this is a bona fide stevedoring company.' Pull the other one. There were consistent denials by both the government and Patrick of their involvement at any stage. They expressed surprise. They knew nothing about any of this. The story as it is now unravelling, because of the disgruntled former plotters, reveals details of a very elaborate scam indeed. Over time, I think more will be revealed.Simultaneously, Patrick is restructuring the company to remove any assets and to load all the major liabilities on the labour hire companies to send them broke—to send them to the bottom of the harbour. But perhaps most lethal of all, from the point of view of this government involved in all this planning, is the engineering of a major government propaganda campaign. I use that word advisedly; it was not just an advertising campaign it was a straight out propaganda campaign. It was obvious to everyone that they were shaping up to a major dispute in which the goals were first of all to demonise the workers, to make the wharfies look like they came from another planet and to make them look like they were not deserving of any decent standards.They manufactured rorts. The minister made them up. He stood in this place with daily rorts and he made them up. They did not exist. They exaggerated wages and conditions. They dehumanised ordinary workers. They misrepresented the objectives as being productivity driven and they misrepresented the facts. Inconvenient data were ignored. They played to envy and resentment in the community. These are tough times for a lot of people and if you can point to people who have a lot then sometimes you can get away with demonising them. They wanted to refocus anger away from the real parasites, the truly greedy, some of whom sit on their front bench.The implication that blue-collar workers are not entitled to decent wages and conditions was through and through all of this discussion. We heard it a while ago. If you have a coat on and a collar and tie, if you are a stockbroker or a lawyer or a doctor or an accountant or a clerk, you can earn decent wages; but if you are a blue-collar worker, forget it. That is what this was all about. Of course, all of this was designed simply and directly to remove the Maritime Union from the waterfront and ultimately to return to the Bull system, where they were not able to cooperate with one another. This was the so- called hungry mile, where workers would compete with one another. You only have to listen to the minister to see that that is precisely what they are on about. It is worth quoting from Justice North's original decision.Mr Moore interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Another flunkey? We get an interjection from the minister at the table. Justice North is described by the minister at the table—I want it in the Hansard record—as `another flunkey'. What an extraordinary comment. I am sure that the honourable justice will be flattered by that description coming from you. Given your standing in this community he will probably wear that as a badge of honour. In his summary, he says:The cancellation of the Labour supply contracts and the appointment of administrators on 7 April 1998 were made possible by a complex inter-company transaction which occurred in September 1997. By dividing the functions of employing workers and owning the business between two companies, the Patrick Group put in place a structure which made it easier to dismiss the whole workforce. It is arguable, on the evidence, that this was done because the employees were members of the union.For that and only that reason. His Honour further said:There is also evidence that the Patrick owners and other companies in the Patrick Group, together with others, agreed on the unlawful acts as part of an overall plan to replace the workforce with non union labour.That particular judge `flunkey' certainly thought that that was your principal objective.As the member for Fremantle I have watched all of this unfold very directly. These are my constituents. These are people who work hard in my electorate. They are families in my electorate. They are ordinary Australians. It has been uniquely awful in Western Australia with the connivance of the state government and the Fremantle Port Authority. We have seen the use of the Tactical Response Group to move protesters from their initial position, complete with helmets and batons drawn. This was a clandestine operation at 2 o'clock in the morning and the workers were pushed and shoved, arrested and then some of them released. They moved a little further away from the gate where they were being locked out. Remember, they were locked out of their workplace. The protesters established what is now known as Tom Edwards corner in memory of a wharfie who was killed in 1919 in a dispute that was orchestrated by another reactionary Liberal government.The wharfies and their families were joined by many members of the local community, who were genuinely horrified by the infringements of civil liberties and human rights that they saw. There were threats, too, from the PGA and the WA Farmers Federation to breach the picket line, with testosterone pumped up farmers claiming to need containers urgently. They said they needed it for seeding. I am a farmer's daughter; they did not need anything for seeding and later they had to confess that that was the case because when they suddenly had access to the wharf they could not find the containers. They did not know where they were or what they were. They inflated the numbers they needed too. It started off being 200 and by the time they actually got onto the wharf there were maybe two or three.At the instigation of the Court government, 500 police were massed, including recruits from country offices. They still had their khakis on. Suburban police stations on one night were left without any officers at all. Emergency numbers rang out. People who were actually being burgled could not get the police to come to their homes. These police then rehearsed proposed action in full view of the protest lines, very provocatively. Over one night they used helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for hours and hours to spotlight and intimidate the assembled crowd. They were going to move the Farmers Federation trucks through at any cost. They are supposed to keep the peace. One wondered what their objective was on that night. It was clearly to run over the protesters.But, in the end, because there were more than 1,000 people gathered on the waterfront, the police retreated. I still retain images of that night. There were people there from all walks of life; elderly men and women lying on the road, sleeping while waiting for the police to go away and resume their proper operation in the community. The cost of this one night's operation to date has been estimated at over $1 million—and in the parliament at least part of that has been acknowledged.There was continued harassment, even after this action and even after the High Court decisions. One fellow, for instance, was arrested for walking his dog without a collar. It would be interesting to see how that goes when it finally comes into the courts. And there have been provocative acts ever since, including slapping yellow stickers on these so-called `chardonnay workers' who have got not very high level motor vehicles; all of them copped lots of yellow stickers as they drove to and from the picket line. There have been provocative acts to breach the picket line, placing lives in danger: on one occasion, they used undue force to get in a fuel truck and mounted the kerb to get it there.Even after the all-clear for work, the Fremantle Port Authority and Patrick's continued to prevaricate. Firstly, they had no maintenance crew. This dispute had been going on for weeks and weeks, the day comes when the courts actually say you go back, the administrators are ready to roll—suddenly nothing is going to happen because there is no maintenance crew. Then, the next day, when the TLC organised a maintenance crew, the paperwork from the Fremantle Port Authority is suddenly not done and they were not working over the weekend—this is a seven-day a week, 24-hour a day port. The urgency had suddenly gone out of it.The workers—I am pleased to say—have finally gone back. They still have no security and they are still at risk as a result of this phoney company restructuring. Just a small note in parenthesis—perhaps an amusing one, but one can see that the workers are sometimes entitled to feel paranoid: I think it was yesterday that senior members of the union went to meet with the administrators to find that the consultant employed is one Victor Court—brother of Charlie Court—and the offices to be used are the offices of Hendry, Ray and Court. They walked out of there feeling a bit the worse for wear.In this bill we have obviously got a tax on everybody to pay for the government's stupidity. The fund will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and it is effectively a payment for Patrick's mismanagement, their inadequacies and their admitted illegal behaviour. The taxpayers are being asked to fund that. There have been no consultations with companies other than P&O and Patrick's—many of whom resent being forced to pay the levy to assist their competitors. How will P&O and Patrick's be able to absorb it, as they claim? Clearly, as a result of duopoly pricing. It was very clear, even with the last round of waterfront reform, that a lot of the productivity improvements were not passed on to the shippers and producers; they stayed with the stevedores.In the past, only genuine and voluntary redundancies were funded; not this time. In the past, those redundancies were the result of negotiation; not this time. They resulted from some analysis of what work force was actually required; not this time.This fund is extraordinary, coming as it does on the back of a very vast conspiracy by this government, a conspiracy ultimately to do one thing: to undermine a union—that is all it is about—a `class enemy', as they see it, people who are prepared to work together for decent wages and conditions. The members opposite would rather they were all standing one at a time, at the mercy of the companies which would seek to employ them when they choose and how they choose. I, for one, as a member of this parliament will not ever stand by and let that go without comment and protest.17:49:003223Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—I support these bills, which, in effect, allow a levy of $12 to be charged on each container and $6 to be charged for each car which crosses the wharf. It is expected that the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 will raise $20 million to $40 million a year. The money so raised can be paid out in redundancy payments to allow genuine restructuring to take place on our waterfront, in our stevedoring industry and in our shipping industry. I stress that this will be done at no cost to the taxpay ers; the levy costs must be absorbed by the stevedores from the increased productivity that will flow from the restructuring on the wharves and in the shipping industry.Contrary to what the last speaker, the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), said, such levies are not uncommon in Australia. We had one imposed in a similar manner back in 1947 and another one in 1977 which was only revoked in 1995. All money will be borrowed, in the first instance, from financial institutions, interest will be paid on that borrowed money and all loans will eventually be repaid from the money collected from the levy. All the government is doing is facilitating the setting up of this mechanism.For Labor members to make mischievous claims that we are funding the MUA redundancies and to ask why we don't therefore do it for the Cobar workers, who were not paid their redundancies, is quite wrong. We are not funding anything at all; not one cent of taxpayers' money is going into this. If a mining company, or any other company in Australia for that matter, wanted to do a similar thing for whatever reason, I am sure this government would give every consideration to assisting them to do so.In the case of Cobar, just to make it clear, Ashanti fled from this country, quite improperly, leaving behind a substantial number of liabilities which should be paid, even by the parent company. I believe there is very strong evidence they indulged in insolvent trading. In other words, they were acting illegally. The one thing the liquidator asked us—as a federal government—to do we have done; namely, we have sooled the Australian Securities Commission onto them. I hope that in the not too distant future they will initiate charges against Ashanti in the Australian courts.Of course the miners at Cobar were employed under state awards and in the first instance the shortfalls of payments should be the concern of the New South Wales state government. Little has been done in that area, so we listed it as the No. 1 item on the agenda at the last Labour Ministers Council, which was held only a week or so ago. All the labour ministers from the various states and the federal government turned up—with the exception of New South Wales. The minister said he was too busy to attend. Consequently, the agenda item did not receive the discussion that it should have. But we will continue to pursue that because we believe there is merit in exploring the ways in which you can protect workers' proper redundancy payments.Getting back to the waterfront, the Cobar mine was a copper mine, of course, and the more efficiently you can get copper across the wharf the better it is for copper miners—as it is for every other importer and exporter in this country. I read in a report today that newsprint goes across a wharf in New Zealand at a tenth of the price it goes across a wharf in Australia.The Labor Party in this debate seem to spend most of their time talking about everything else but why we want reform on the waterfront. They have talked at length about Dubai. Who cares whether the people were trained in Dubai, Dee Why, Dunedoo, Timbuktu or wherever? Many people have been trained overseas. Members of my own family have been and are being trained overseas now; I think there would hardly be a member in the chamber who has not been in that situation. I have even had a brief period of overseas training myself. If I detect the accent of one John Coombs correctly, it would not surprise me if he has had some training overseas as well. I do not see anything wrong with training overseas. The question that should be asked is: why do they have to resort to training people overseas when it would have been preferable to train them in Australia?The fact is that we have the worst ports in the world when it comes to efficiency. I seek leave to incorporate this table, which I have shown to the minister at the table, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—AUSTRALIAN PORTS—HOW THEY COMPAREConsolidated Survey ResultsReliabilityTurnaround SpeedValue for MoneySingapore111Hong Kong4310Rotterdam655Zeebrugge999Los Angeles777Osaka228Hamburg864Oakland343Auckland582Tilbury111112Le Harve101011Brisbane141314Busan12126Adelaide131518Fremantle161615Burnie151413Melbourne171716Sydney 181817MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—I thank the House. This table clearly shows that, compared with the rest of the world, we are running last. To put it in athletic terms, if the rest of the world is running the mile in four minutes or less, we are running it in about six minutes and 30 seconds. It would be a cause for shame if that were happening in athletics. Why is it not a cause for shame in the workplace? Come the 100 metres race in the 2000 Olympics, the rest of the world will be slipping down the track in about 10 seconds and we will be scampering over the line with a crutch under the arm in about 14 or 15 seconds. If that happened it would be headlines—what are we going to do about it?—and quite rightly so.When it comes to something even more important than sport, namely, the workplace, we are apparently prepared to go along with this sort of record—the worst in the world. Why aren't we striving to be the best in the world? Surely it is not an unreasonable question. Where is the pride of this country when it comes to that?While the rest of the world is working faster, smarter and more profitably, we seem to be hell-bent on working in a slow manner, in a dumb manner and deliberately sabotaging anybody who employs us. I say that quite deliberately, and I am not just referring to the picket lines where they were spitting on people who wanted to work, smashing windows, threatening people with their lives, ringing up workers' daughters to say that their fathers had been killed and that sort of thing. I am talking about what they were doing to Patrick. In the two months before, there were strikes on 43 out of the 60 days. They had run up accumulated losses against Patrick of $56 million. They did not want to work. Then when Patrick said, `If you don't want to work we will get rid of you and put in a group of people who do want to work,' they suddenly decided they wanted to. What sort of mentality is this?I do not necessarily approve of everything that Patrick did in the way they got rid of their work force, but I do have some understanding of what drove them to do it. They just want to get on and make a quid by moving cargo backwards and forwards across the wharf in the quickest and most profitable way possible, which surely is good for Australia.I take my hat off to the role that the farmers have played in this, and particularly the NFF. The NFF comes under criticism from many quarters, including farmers from time to time—I have even criticised them myself from time to time—but they have led the debate in getting a more efficient wharf in many places. It was 20-odd years ago when they straightened out the situation with live sheep. Once the debate was won, the leaders of the unions on the wharf in those days accepted it.CH4HOLDINGMr Holding—To their credit.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—Yes, to their credit. Ten years ago or less, the same thing happened with bulk handling in this country, particularly with grain. We got the price of getting grain across the wharf down from 70c a tonne to 25c a tonne. In real terms that is a decrease of over 70 per cent. Tas Bull opposed it at the beginning—and I can understand that to a point—but then he accepted it, and that now works well, with Australia matching the rest of the world. In fact, we actually beat New Zealand and some of the US ports in bulk handling. It is an example of where improvements can be made to the advantage of both sides.When it comes to containers—the third leg of the trifecta—we have John Coombs leading the waterfront and not only doing Australia a disservice but, in the long run, doing his own members a disservice. The port of Tauranga in New Zealand cut their overmanning by 50 per cent, their ship turnaround times have dropped from 5½ days to 1.6 days, their tonnes handled per hour per man have risen from 71.9 to 111.5 and their ship departures last year almost doubled—from 4,078 to 8,028. That New Zealand port, with equipment and tonnages not matching many of our ports, now leaves us for dead. It has been said that those little moves have saved New Zealand farmers $3,000 on average per farm per year, and I am sure that the same or far greater savings could be translated to farmers in Australia.It is not just the number of containers being shifted across the wharf per hour that we should be debating. We reduce it to those simplistic figures when we are trying to explain it in media grabs which are limited to seconds, but many other things are equally if not more important. The attitude of the workers is probably as critical as anything. On too many occasions, the pace of work in Australia is determined by the opportunity for overtime. Reliability is just appalling and the strike record is the worst in the world. We shift 1.8 per cent of the world's cargo but we have 23 per cent of the world's strikes.It is not as if these people are underpaid, for heaven's sake. They receive between $60,000 and $100,000-odd a year for relatively low hours. I do not begrudge them the high wage. I would like to see them earning even more if they were worth it. But they are continually on strike, and it has been the case for the last 100 years in this country. It is a blight on society. The health and safety record is one of the worst there is. The injuries per 1,000 employees is just a smidgen under 170, when the next highest industry is 64, and when they do sustain an injury apparently on average it costs $1,061 compared with the all-industry average of $228. So it is not doing the health or safety of the workers any good either.The ship turnaround times in this country are the worst in the world. We have high storage costs. We have double handling. We have some of the dumbest working habits in the world. It was summed up to me the other day when I was in the RSL club in Dubbo talking to a truckie who sidled up to me with just the simplest of stories. It just epitomised the problem that we have in this country today. He said that 15 years ago when, for the first time in his life, he went to the wharf in his truck to deliver his load he was 14th in line and he thought, `Well, I could be out of here in half an hour or so, but I have heard the reputation of this place. It is probably going to take an hour or more, but I've got some deadlines and appointments to meet further down the track.' He sat there patiently and watched the wharfies dawdling around. They would unload a bit and then they would go and have a smoko and play cards and do this and that.He got so impatient in the end that, after half a day, he said, `Well, damn this! I'm going to get in my truck, drive to the front of the queue and unload the thing myself and be out of there in no time at all.' Fortunately, his truckie friends descended on him and said to him, `Whatever you do, don't do that. Your load will be black-listed and you will be black-listed for the rest of your life.' So he learnt to sit there for what turned out to be about three-quarters of a day or more, and missed the deadlines further down the track of the other loads that he had to pick up when he left. That not only caused cost and inconvenience to him but cost and inconvenience to the other people.It is these sorts of factors that are built into the costs which are never shown in these reports—let alone what it does to the ship sitting in the harbour at $30,000 a day on average for a 2,000 or 2,500 TEU ship. The attitude on the wharves today has very massive roll-on effects. As I said, $60,000 to $100,000 a year; five weeks holiday; 27½ per cent loading; rostered weeks off; 10 days sick leave—accumulative and can be cashed out—five days per employee per year in some circumstances to attend federal conferences of the MUA; eight employees per month going to union powwows; two employees per month going to union branch meetings; 25 man-days a year to trade union training courses; long service leave; retrenchment leave; and redundancy pays unheard of in this country.The rest of the work force in Australia, of which we can be pretty proud, has a maximum of eight weeks redundancy leave pay, according to the Industry Commission reports I read, but if you work for three years on the waterfront you can get 78 weeks pay and it goes up to a maximum of 148 weeks. The management have not been able to even talk directly to the members. They cannot even write a letter to the people they employ and pay the wages of. It is quite extraordinary indeed. And, of course, we have the engagement system whereby the union dictates who is hired and so on. As the Patrick manager said, 80 per cent of the time of their managers is spent in dealing with industrial disputes.So here we have it in summary. Australia, an island continent at the end of the world with a pretty low population with no more than 3,000 exporters and 30,000 importers and with 99 per cent of its imports by volume and 96 per cent of its exports by volume going across the wharves, has the most inefficient wharf in the world when we should have the most efficient wharf in the world. I think it is an absolute disgrace. The Australian public are fed up with it. They want it fixed. Whatever else Patrick's may have done, I congratulate them for at least having the guts to put their hand up and do something about it. Whatever happens, it is apparent that the waterfront in this country is never going to be the same again. As soon as we get these changes implemented, the better for this country and the better for the importers and exporters of Australia.18:05:003227Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—I remember well listening to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) during the election campaign when he said—and I think he meant it at the time—he wanted to govern for all Australians. He did not exclude any particular group. The second thing I would like to refer the House to is the actual title of the minister for industrial relations. That means what it says.I think it is legitimate for any government to say it wants waterfront reform. I have spoken to members of the Waterside Workers Federation and they want waterfront reform. There are many parties interested in waterfront reform. But what we have here is a conspiracy which involves the Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). You could see that both by their body language and what they were saying yesterday when they were asked whether they would make public some of the documents that they hold. No way. Would they have a commission of inquiry? No way. What does all this come down to? The minister for industrial relations should have the integrity that has been shown by previous ministers. I read a press report which said that Dr Webster, who must be some kind of a whiz-kid—I do not know that he has ever been a wharfie or even visited the wharf—was paid $1,000 per day to produce a report. But where is it?What has been overlooked in this debate is that, after a series of negotiations, Chris Corrigan and his stevedoring company in December last year signed off an industrial agreement with the Waterside Workers Federation. What did he have to say when he spoke about the government's intentions on Sunday, 20 February 1998? He said, `I think it is for the federal government to decide the issue. We were happy to pursue the agreement we have with the unions under the arrangements that are available to us in that regard.' So there was a signed agreement. One may well argue that, as part of any industrial reform of the waterfront, perhaps more than two stevedoring companies are needed. The government seem to have forgotten that. Do they really believe that two stevedoring companies constitute effective competition on the wharf?I have sat in this House and listened to the minister for industrial relations as, day after day, he smears, maligns and demeans Australian waterside workers. As one of my colleagues pointed out to the House, what does that do to these men and their families? What happens when their kids go to school and the other kids ask, `What does your daddy do?' and they say, `He's a wharfie'?I have been to two functions since I returned to Australia. While I was overseas on behalf of the parliament in Angola and Namibia what did I see about Australia? I saw what was happening in my own electorate on the waterfront. I felt a sense of shame that a government which said it was going to act for all Australians could intervene in such a way as to produce a level of industrial confrontation which we have not seen in this nation for years. Since I have been back I have visited Webb Dock and spoken to waterside workers. They are not unhappy about talking about reform, but they are going to defend their jobs.The history of this union is a long history. In 1921 there was this sort of confrontation when Italian workers who could barely speak English were used as pawns and brought down to the wharf. There was confrontation throughout the streets of Port Melbourne on a daily basis. The police came down and fired on waterside workers. They shot two, one of whom was a union official. He died. What was interesting was that he had survived Gallipoli. That is the history of this union. If they have got conditions it is because they had enough guts as Australians to stand up and get decent conditions—and it has not come easily.I hear the minister for industrial relations. Does he have a plan? Surely the role of a minister for industrial relations is to say, `Right, the government needs waterfront reform. I will bring the stevedoring companies in. I will bring in all the main players, including the Waterside Workers Federation. We will sit down as fellow Australians and we will discuss this problem and see what we can hammer out.' Was that ever done? What is the minister for industrial relations? He is a bullyboy. There was no attempt to negotiate. Mr Corrigan said, `Look, I've signed off on an agreement. I am perfectly happy to make it work. If the government wants to come in, well, they've got to sort it out.' What a mess they have made. We are now in a situation where the one thing we will not get is any form of inquiry because there is a conspiracy here that leads straight into the Prime Minister's office—there is no question about it. What is the answer? We are told, `Oh, everybody wants the government to proceed.'The other function I went to since I returned to Australia was a march in Melbourne. I have been to plenty of marches in my time. I was involved in the Vietnam moratorium marches. This is the biggest march I have ever seen. The minimum estimate was 50,000; the maximum was 100,000. Melbourne was virtually closed down: 20 abreast across the street going for block after block, and they were not all waterside workers. They were decent Australian citizens who are concerned about the attacks this government is making upon the working conditions of every Australian.These are real issues. If this government has any sense, let it explain. Let us know what has occurred. Does anyone seriously believe that there was no involvement between the minister and Mr Corrigan in the planning of Dubai? What we get is this whiz-kid on $1,000 a day.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—The minister has said he didn't know.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—They would not pay you even $1,000 a week.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—On a good week.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—Yes, on a good week. He has produced a report, but where is it? He denies he had any contact with those who were involved in Dubai.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Do you believe that?CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—No, I don't.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—Do the Australian people believe it?CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—No, they don't. I do not think even the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore), who is at the table, believes it.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He has got a big imagination.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—It doesn't have to be too big. What does Dr Webster say? This man is paid $1,000 a day to live in the minister's office and produce a formula. Having said he knew nothing about it, the telephone bill then showed that there was some contact.Mr Moore interjecting—CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—He is not as good as the wharfies; he is a human being because he has lied. He was sitting in the minister's office. What is his explanation? He said he was doing a favour for a prominent Melbourne businessman who needed a chauffeur. He must have had paralysis. All of us have at various times been approached to find a job for somebody. What do we do? We pick up the phone. If we want to talk to somebody in the SAS or a former SAS officer, we say, `Look, there's a great job going. This is the requirement. Could you find somebody and give me a ring back?' But did he tell his minister? He hopped on a plane and went down—at the taxpayers' expense, no doubt.All of these things do not hold water. If the government has legitimate proposals for reform, it is entitled to lay them on the table and put them at a conference which involves all interested parties. It has not done that. What is the explanation? Is it that the govern ment is too busy or that it does not talk to wharfies?The other function I went to was a really interesting one. It was the Melbourne waterside workers Mother's Day picnic. The workers were there with their families. The picnic was held on Mother's Day because the workers wanted to say thankyou to their wives who had supported them in their activities to defend their jobs and working conditions. It was the women who spoke.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Who supplied the meat for them?CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—Victorian farmers provided the meat, partly as a way of saying that when they were hard up against it the waterside workers were happy to take a hat round and send them $60,000. The minister can shake his head. It might get his brain moving so he can consider some of these aspects.EI4MOOREMr Moore—They're doing all right, don't worry about that.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—That is good. Was this an industrial confrontation that needed to occur? In my view, the answer to that question is no, it did not need to occur. If there is anything that sickens me to my heart, as it would sicken any decent Australian, it is the way that it is often easy to say to these average Australian families, these people who go to work, `It is so easy.' For years I acted for the Melbourne waterfront union, mainly in the area of industrial accidents. We should never forget that, for these people, all they have to sell is their physical labour. What if they get it wrong and their back goes?We have a minister who, on a daily basis, stands up and talks about rorts. I do not like hearing members of parliament referred to as bludgers, but if we have a head count in terms of rorts by waterside workers and members of parliament, including some former ministers, we would not poll too well at the moment. It is time there was some reality in this issue. It is not the Australian way to demonise any one section of the work force. It is not the Australian way to produce industrial confrontation when you have not even put forward a document which involves any significant attempt at reform. It is easy to say, `We want reform.' But what does the government want? Does it want longer hours and different conditions? It is all very well to compare the freight rates in Japan. Has the minister ever visited the wharves in Japan and seen the equipment they have? He should go down to Webb Dock where he will find a crane—and there are not many cranes—that has been broken for three years. There is equipment that does not live with the capacity that exists in other international ports. What the minister does is get the figures and say, `Oh, look, they move so much more in Japan.' Of course they do.Where are the documents that formed the policy of this government? On what basis do we talk about rorts? I know a lot of waterside workers in my electorate. None of them have the capacity of the minister for industrial relations, so-called—he does not believe in workplace relations—to ring up a prominent Melbourne businessman, Lloyd Williams, who runs a casino, and say, `Lloyd, the kids need a bit of a flat and you know a lot about flats. Can you help me? There is nothing wrong with that.' Help him? `Oh,' he says, `I'll give you a discount of $20,000.' Why would Lloyd Williams do that? He would do it for a mate, but he also knows that it is not a bad thing to be owed a favour by a minister of the crown. This minister gets up in here and talks about rorts. Until the parliament sorts itself out, and sorts out some of its own members on both sides of the House, he should not open his mouth about rorts.This whole episode is a national disgrace. The minister is not going to come clean. The government are going to rely on their uninformed numbers to maintain a vengeful campaign of hatred against decent Australians who have toiled and worked for a living and won conditions for themselves over a period, conditions which the stevedoring companies were happy to accept and would have accepted—they would have got on with their business—until there was government interference.This exercise is not designed around any policy. No details have been given about the reforms the government propose. This is an exercise which is designed to smash an Australian trade union as the first step in disciplining the whole Australian work force and it ought to be condemned. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to have an open inquiry on these issues, he is not fit to be Prime Minister because, as I have said, there is clearly evidence of a conspiracy. It will be sorted out in the courts. The problem for the Prime Minister is that this conspiracy leads to his own office and his failure to act properly as Prime Minister and pull his Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business into line.18:22:003230Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of joining in the debate on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has made very clear, the coalition is absolutely determined to bring about world's best practice on the Australian waterfront. We do not believe that, in 1998, it is possible to continue with an unproductive and inefficient waterfront, along with the rorts and corrupt practices which have existed for so many years.CH4HOLDINGMr Holding—What are they? Tell me, come on!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—What about the nick? What about the way in which people refuse to work the way they should? What about the way in which people rort the system to get the most they can out of overtime while failing to produce the number of container movements that they should? We all know about the Australian waterfront. We know that it is an international disgrace.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us about John Sharp.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—You ought not interject, my friend. You are an absolute apologist for John Coombs and the Maritime Union of Australia. The Labor Party stands condemned because it essentially has been prepared to support a union with wages and conditions way beyond those of the Aussie battler while conditions on the Australian waterfront have brought about a situation where workers in other parts of the economy are losing jobs. Families are suffering because of the ineffi ciency of the Australian waterfront which has made so many Australian industries uncompetitive. The former Labor government knew what had to be done and in fact wasted $430 million in the attempt. This government has started the process with the Workplace Relations Act, and we and the majority of Australians believe that this international scandal must be fixed up once and for all.We are determined to achieve real and meaningful reform on the Australian waterfront. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. The future of the country is based on the need to bring about world best practice in our waterfront. We are Australians and we have the capacity to be as good as the rest of the world. It is simply unacceptable that our waterfront remains a disgrace and so inefficient that our products are not able to be conveyed across the wharves to compete in the world marketplace.These two bills before the House will deliver on our commitments towards reforming the Australian waterfront. The levy will contribute towards redundancies in the interests of improving efficiencies. The bills raise a levy on stevedoring operations to fund these administrative arrangements and ensure that the industry is responsible for such funding rather than the taxpayer. The Labor Party, in contrast, threw away $430 million of taxpayers' money to their mates in the MUA. Yet, regrettably, productivity remains virtually as low as it has always been.This bill provides the mechanism for the collection of the levy, imposed by the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 , on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia. The bill will ensure that there are significant improvements in productivity, because the minister has made it amply clear that the redundancy payments will only be available to fund improved efficiencies on the Australian waterfront. Redundant employees will receive, depending on their length of service and classification, amounts of up to $270,000 including superannuation. The levy will be administered by the Maritime Industry Finance Company, which has been authorised to borrow up to $250 million to be repaid by the imposition of the stevedoring levy outlined in the bill before the House.Nowhere in the world is there a workplace with luxurious conditions such as those existing on the Australian waterfront. Most Australians do not mind a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, but unfortunately it is simply unacceptable that someone should receive $90,000 a year to sit on a crane for 14 hours a week.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Rubbish!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Do you think that is acceptable? Do you think it is appropriate that someone should be paid $90,000 to sit on a crane for 14 hours a week? These kinds of corrupt practices and inefficiencies are objectionable because they are helping to make it difficult for Australian companies to export efficiently.Let us look at the crane rate. Australia's five-port average crane rate of 18 per hour is currently 45 per cent below the modest benchmark of 25 containers an hour. Thirty per hour is common overseas. Australia is well behind competitors like New Zealand, Thailand and even Mozambique. It takes many more days to turn around a ship on the Australian waterfront than it does in New Zealand, and it is much more expensive to process the passage of goods from ships and across the waterfront. Strike figures on the waterfront are almost 10 times the national average and second only to coalmining. We were the worst country in the world for waterfront reliability in 1997. Is this acceptable? The coalition very firmly believes that it is not. Occupational health and safety records are the worst in any industry.You will be interested to know that as part of the overall waterfront reform package, including the bills currently before the House, the government has reached agreements with Australia's two major stevedoring operators—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; greater reliability through less industrial disruption and the elimination of outdated work practices, for example, the nick; improved safety, injury and fatality levels back to the all-industries average or better; lower costs throughout the logistic chain to the waterfront gateway; more efficient use of the technology available to increase productivity and ship turnaround times; and improved training. These seven benchmark objectives are the basis behind these bills. It is interesting to note that redundancies will only be financed if those seven benchmarks are met.The Australian community demands that there be real and lasting waterfront reform. I do not care whether someone is in a union or not in a union, but it is completely unacceptable for there to be a closed shop on the wharves. With respect to the waterfront dispute, it is interesting to note that the Labor Party has acted as the foot soldiers for the MUA. The unions and Australian Labor Party leaders were very selective in which court orders they would observe and breached rulings made by Mr Justice Barry Beach in the Victorian Supreme Court which prohibited MUA workers and other people from maintaining pickets in Melbourne. When Mr Justice Tony North found that there was a case to answer with respect to certain of the matters raised by the union and made interim orders—which, I might add, were observed by Mr Corrigan and Patrick—we found that the union was very much to the forefront, as was the Labor Party, in demanding that the stevedore observe those orders.The Labor Party and the MUA have been absolutely hypocritical over this whole issue of waterfront reform. Labor has been exposed as a party prepared to stand up for a privileged minority which has gone out of its way to destroy the jobs of other Australians.It is interesting to note that wharfies, on average, earn $72,000 a year; whereas nurses earn about $40,000; hospitality workers, $29,000; and police, $47,000. These people give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. But it is obvious that, with the conditions which have arisen on the Australian waterfront, the wharfies have forgotten how to provide a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It should be noted that Patrick's, with its new work force, has ended the rorts, has been more efficient and has been attaining world's best practice and performance.It is tragic that the MUA and the Labor Party have been prepared to defend the indefensible. The opposition has been prepared to defend the MUA in its breach of court orders, and to see the jobs of other Australians destroyed.This government is absolutely committed and determined to bringing about enduring reform on the Australian waterfront. It cannot go on as it is. The Labor Party threw $430 million of taxpayers' money in the direction of the waterfront and failed to achieve significant improvements in productivity. We are saying that enough is enough. This scandal must be fixed up once and for all. This government, including the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, is absolutely determined to bring about change and world's best practice on the Australian waterfront. I commend the bills to the chamber.18:32:003232O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 provides a mechanism for the collection of a levy on every container and vehicle that is loaded or unloaded in Australia. That money will be distributed through administrative arrangements by the government. The bill sets a maximum levy rate of $20 per container and $10 per car, although lower rates might be set by regulation. The government has announced that initially the rates will be set at $12 and $6, respectively.This particular bill gives legislative expression to one of the most sordid political and industrial episodes in Australia's history. We have heard many speakers from the government benches justifying this particular piece of legislation. But, really, behind it is one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's industrial history.It really does pain me to hear opposition members like the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) come into this place and moralise about waterfront reform. If you are going to moralise about waterfront reform, you have to do it from some position of moral authority. This government has no moral authority to speak about what it considers to be rorts on Australia's waterfront. The previous speaker touted the conservative mantra that obviously has come from the consultancies it commissioned and which cost the Australian taxpayer $1.3 million. Those opposite are obviously preaching the mantra, sticking to the lines, trying to mould public opinion to justify what many of us know now is one of the great conspiracies in Australia's industrial history.Who is making the charges against the MUA on Australia's waterfront, and have they the moral authority to do so? One person who is doing it is the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who himself has a very sordid history of protecting tax rorters in this country. We all remember—and it does not take a long memory to do so—that this was a Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, in 1982 failed to act against tax rorters in this country and cost the Australian taxpayer $2 billion in 1982-83 dollars. That particular amount of money is nearly as much as the current surplus that is being touted and lauded by this particular government.We have a Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) who graciously accepted a $47,000 discount on a penthouse suite at Crown Casino. Of course, we all know with what great moral authority the minister comes into this parliament and onto the floor of this chamber to speak. He has no credibility—neither in this place nor outside of it. We have a new favourite term for him: we used to call him Penthouse Pete, but now we call him Pentridge Pete—and I believe that he has one foot out of the cell.I think it is an extraordinary episode where ministers of the crown, ministers of a civilised government, can engage in such a sordid conspiracy and expect that nobody will find out about it. If there is a humorous side to this sordid mess, it is that this minister engaged consultants, costing $1.3 million, to outline the game plan for sacking the whole MUA work force on the Australian waterfront and then religiously put the plan into place, not realising and not having sought advice to the effect that they were engaging in what judges from the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia, 10 to one, have determined a prima facie case of conspiracy. We know now why the industrial relations minister is trying to seek an indemnity from having his pants sued off over this particular issue. He will be like Malcolm Fraser, a former Liberal Prime Minister. But the minister will not be walking around the hotels of Australia without his pants on; he will be walking around this House without his pants on—because, when the MUA gets through with him, they will sue the pants off him for his role in this conspiracy.The Howard government that moralises about rorts on the Australian waterfront has seen eight resignations and sackings from its ministry for rorting travel allowances and for assorted failures to uphold the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct. These are the people who are on the floor of this House moralising about rorts on the Australian waterfront. If those on the other side of this chamber really think that the Australian people are going to swallow that line, they have really failed to understand the fundamental fairness of the Australian working people, who have already passed judgment on this sordid episode.The coalition government and its members have attempted to paint a picture of a waterfront that has undergone very little restructuring over the last 15 years. There are many industries in Australia that have felt the real pain of restructuring. That pain of restructuring grew out of government policies and government inactivity in those particular areas. It grew out of the pressures of globalisation. My community was one of those. We did lose thousands of jobs in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and in the motor vehicle industries through industry restructuring. But that was a process that had to take place if we were going to position our communities to survive throughout the 1990s and beyond 2000. The same restructuring that occurred in those industries occurred on the Geelong waterfront—and I will quote those particular statistics later. In Geelong we lost some 300 jobs and around this country the stevedoring work force was cut from some 10,000 to 3,700.That was a process of change that grew out of the inactivity on this very issue of previous Liberal governments. It was a Labor government that took up the challenge and restructured Australia's waterfront. Between 1989 and 1992 we saw container rates increase by 50 per cent, ship turnaround times were halved and some 57 per cent of the work force took voluntary redundancies. The process of productivity improvements on the wharf has continued since 1992 with the process of enterprise bargaining that has taken place between the MUA and the stevedoring work force in this country.In the arrangements that were made at the time of that restructuring the government said that it would back that restructuring and provide resources for redundancies because of the pooled arrangements by which labour was employed on Australia's waterfronts. But the deal with the companies and the unions was, from that particular date, that the companies themselves would shoulder the burden of further restructuring and redundancies that would occur.But what have we here? We have one of the great corporate scams of the 1990s and it is supported by senior ministers in this government. The restructuring proposals from 1989 said that the government would pick up some of the tab and when the employment moved to companies then those companies would shoulder the burden of further redundancies and restructuring. Now the Australian people are being asked through this legislation to bear the burden of one of the great political incompetencies and one of the great industrial scams in our history. And, of course, the Prime Minister just cannot help himself when it comes to scams and rorts. We all remember the bottom of the harbour schemes. The Prime Minister of this country, who was Treasurer at the time, did nothing to attack a scam that cost the Australian people around $2 billion—almost as much as the federal surplus in bare dollar terms.But now the Prime Minister has gone one better. Now he has gone one better than just folding his hands on a bottom of the harbour taxation scam. He has actively aided and abetted a corporate scam whereby a company has deliberately stripped its assets and then proceeded to sack its work force. Not only that; he has then gone on to ask the Australian public to pay for the scam. The Australian people will not tolerate this sort of chicanery in our industrial arena or our political arena. And the chickens of the government's deception in this matter are now coming home to roost in the courts of Australia.If there is anybody who has the moral authority to argue their case in this dispute it is the workers and the unions on the Australian waterfront. Why do I say that? I say it because 10 judges to one—the arbiters in these sorts of disputes between companies, their employees, the government and the community—have indicated to the Australian people that there is a prima facie case to answer by the conspirators to this sordid mess.Some 1,400 permanent and 600 casual employees were sacked in 17 ports around the nation. They were not sacked because of any great inefficiencies; they were sacked in a conspiracy that was based on several ideological premises. One is that Australian industrial relations should be governed by individual contracts and not by collective agreement or collective arrangements. The second basis on which this scam has been promoted by the government and Patrick's and supported by the conservative establishment of this country is that they wanted to get at one of the more successful unions in this country; a union that has successfully stood up to companies and governments over a long period of time to defend their members' rights to an honest income.The people of Geelong resoundingly support the struggle of the MUA against Patrick's and the government in this matter. Geelong now boasts one of the most efficient bulk handling ports in the world and I pay tribute to the cooperation between the MUA members, the companies and the port of Geelong that has brought this about. It has not come without pain to the Geelong community. The restructuring of the Geelong port has seen the work force decline from around 260 in 1990 to the extent that in 1998 some 60 full-time people are now employed.On the stevedoring side, two companies now operate at the Geelong port. In 1990 the pooled arrangements saw 120 full-time people employed on the wharves in Geelong. In 1998 that figure is 57. That restructuring has been achieved peacefully and with cooperation in all sectors of the Geelong community and with the federal government, but it has not been without pain: pain to the Geelong community and pain to the proud families that have served on the Geelong waterfront for many years.When workers in Geelong were called on to rally to the support of the MUA against this insidious attack upon them, we saw some 5,000 men and women in Geelong demonstrate against this pernicious action and this sort of legislation and in support of the MUA and the union movement. That demonstrates the depth of concern among Geelong workers and their families about this Prime Minister, this industrial relations minister and the Workplace Relations Act, which has formed the umbrella for this insidious and pernicious attack on Geelong's maritime work force and indeed on the nation's maritime work force.I felt really proud as the march wound its way down Moorabool Street to Steampacket Place on Corio Bay. It was a magnificent show of strength and solidarity by Geelong workers and their families. It was a great mix of people from the region's Labor movement, who were there to demonstrate very forcefully against this government and its workplace legislation and in support of unionists and fellow workers.Workers and their families and retired workers were there. There were representatives of the union movement, and I mention Tony Anderson, the president of the Geelong Trades Hall Council; John Kranz, the secretary of the Trades Hall Council; Kevin O'Leary, from the MUA; and key officials from all the great Geelong unions. Political representatives of the Labor movement were there: the shadow industry minister, Simon Crean, myself and the Labor member for Geelong North, Peter Loney.There were Labor stalwarts from the Geelong region and elsewhere to demonstrate their strong support, and I mention Gordon Scholes, a former minister of the Crown and a former Speaker of this place; Neil `Nipper' Trezise, a former minister in the Cain government; Bernie Darcy, a former secretary of the Geelong Trades Hall Council; Gerry Smith, a former secretary of the Maritime Union of this country and a recently retired Mayor of the City of Geelong; and Frank Crean, a former minister in the Whitlam government—and I deliver my apologies to those whose names I have not mentioned. They were all there to deliver their strong support and to march in solidarity with their fellow unionists and workers who are under attack from one of the most rotten and discredited governments this country has ever seen.I had the pleasure of visiting sacked MUA workers in the port of Townsville and read a letter from the stevedoring company which congratulated them on the fine work that they had done in unloading cargoes in that particular port and which said to keep up the good work. What they got from this government and what they got from Patrick's was the sack for no other reason than that they happened to be members of the MUA; it was nothing to do with their industrial performance, nothing to do with their performance in their workplace but everything to do with the fact that they were members of a union and everything to do with the fact that they were working people.I visited the sacked workers at East Swanson Dock and I saw the outpouring of community support for them, and it simply meant one thing: the Australian community has had enough. It has had enough of a government that expresses its work force reform in the form of black-suited guards with rottweilers. You can put up the barbed wire as much as you like, you can train as many rottweilers as you like, you can train as many ex-SAS and Blackshirts as you may well do, but let me tell you this: over the years in this country the Labor movement has never buckled to this sort of conservative intimidation. It has never wavered. Our greatest pleasure will be that when we win the next election we will stand at the government benches and repeal the most pernicious aspects of the legislation that you now use to intimidate workers throughout this country, and that will be the price you will pay. (Time expired)18:52:003236Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I commence my contribution to the debate on these stevedoring bills by explaining that my grandfather was a founding member of the Clerks Union of Australia. He lived and worked through the Depression and he suffered the worst injustices of employers against employees. His son, my father, spent 50 years of his working life in the maritime industry. He began on rat-infested steam cargo ships, he worked through the largest passenger liners in the world and when he retired at the end of the 1980s he was marine chief steward purser on ANL's flag trade ship. My father was a member of the Cooks and Stewards Union of Australia before its amalgamation into the MUA and he was a delegate to that union's federal council for four years. By the time he retired in 1988, he said to me, `Son, I am ashamed of what the unions are now doing.'For those great injustices and the great fights, particularly in the early part of this century, the presence and participation by workers in unions, I think, made Australian society better than it would otherwise have been. There is a very important place for unions. But this union, the Maritime Union of Australia, has gone well beyond what the purpose of unions is about. What it has done has meant that ships are held up for the most trivial of reasons: extra crayfish ration a week, extra noise money and all kinds of demands for overmanning.This issue of waterfront reform is about two things. The first is that, as a small, highly specialised, trade dependent economy, Australia, and most importantly the next generation—that is, my children—can no longer afford to pay a 40 per cent premium on containerised and general cargo moving across our docks. The second is that of monopolies. The waterfront is characterised by a labour monopoly, a stevedoring duopoly and port authority charges at monopolistic prices. Most specifically, the MUA is monopolising labour. It determines who works, when they work, what tasks they perform, who will be promoted and whether they will be dismissed. Mr Corrigan at one point said, in response to criticism by the union of management practices, `Yes, I accept that criticism. If only we could manage our own business instead of having the union do it for us.' In response to the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor), I think Mr Corrigan also put it very well when he said of the MUA and its members at Port Botany, `They withdrew their labour for 43 of the last 64 days. They have the right to do that. We are now withdrawing our capital.'During the first week of March an MUA delegation visited us here at Parliament House to press their case, and for that I think they deserve credit. I asked them what the problem is they have with competition, whether it be the NFF stevedoring or non-unionised labour handling cargo. None, was the reply. When I further pressed them on the issue of the labour monopoly, I was told emphatically that membership of the MUA was of a `purely voluntary nature'. As this seemed at odds with the extraordinary power the union has over its work force, I asked, `Okay, so how many people working on Australia's waterfront today are not members of your union?' After a pause I was told a couple, in Far North Queensland. Wharfies join the union, it seems, because they are attracted overwhelmingly to the rich variety of services it apparently offers. When I distributed my April addition of the Bradfield Brief, my newsletter to my constituents, I said this, and I believe it fairly represents the government's position:Every working person in this country should be free and encouraged to join a union and be entitled to have organised representation if that is what they wish. But equally Australians should be free to choose to work in any industry and not be represented by a union, negotiating their own workplace arrangements with their employer supported by a standard safety net cast by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.We have heard a lot from the other side about the Maritime Union of Australia and its members. What about those employees who obviously want to work, who do not want to be a member of the MUA and who have gladly worked over the last couple of months for P&C Stevedores? What rights do they have? Do they have less rights than other Australians because they are not members of a union? They should have no more nor less rights than any member of any union in this country.Australian society, as I say, has been enriched by the presence of unions, especially during the early part of this century, but things have changed. These objectives have been lost to the MUA. When you read the MUA's article of objectives, I point out to the House objective 4A: to regulate and protect the wages and conditions under which all members or other persons entitled to become members of the union may be employed; to control the supply of labour; to regulate relations between the members and their employers and between the members and other employees in or in connection with the industries of the union, and to foster the best interests of the members of the union. Section 4C is to secure preference of employment for members.Bob Mathew, until recently chairman of Brierley Investments, summed it up best as Vice-Chairman of the New Zealand Business Round Table in his address to CEDA on 29 April 1997 when he said:Nothing more symbolises economic mediocrity than a high cost inefficient waterfront. Nothing is more visible and discouraging to overseas trading partners and potential investors. And nothing would make the remaining elements of the reform task seem easier than success on the waterfront.For the past 50 years there has been an inquiry into Australia's waterfront on average every four years. Amongst them was one in 1987 by the Commonwealth Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, which found the direct cost of moving goods across the waterfront to be 2.6 per cent of total value of exports. Indirect costs were a further 2.5 to three per cent, half of which it estimated to be avoidable.In 1995, almost a decade later, the Bureau of Industry Economics found that Australian crane rates at best equal Europe's worst, being 25 to 50 per cent behind better performing ports. Waterfront charges were 162 per cent higher than international best practice. Direct waterfront services account for in excess of four per cent of the value of export prices, plus indirect costs such as increased container leasing and handling costs, increased land transport costs for diverted cargo, added port and fuel costs for shipowners due to slower turnaround times, higher stock levels needed to be held and increased road transport costs associated with queuing.Then, of course, in the last month we have seen the 1998 Productivity Commission report, which found that on average earnings for Maritime Union of Australia members, wharfies, vary between $60,000 a year and $101,000 a year, 20 to 30 per cent of which is earned in overtime and five to 15 per cent from productivity bonuses, and that the average income is $72,000 a year.I do not have any problem at all with people earning that sort of money, but it is a question of what kind of work people do and how much effort they put into earning that sort of money. If these people were working an 80- or a 90-hour week, and working darned hard to see that Australia could compete with the rest of the world, I would have no trouble with it; in fact, I would be likely to argue that they should be paid more. But when you consider, as we know, that on average 14 hours a week is spent sitting on a crane, and that the rest of most of that 45 hours a week has been identified by the ABS as being taken up with idle time and other kinds of abuses, you have to consider that this is quite inappropriate.The two studies conducted by the Productivity Commission found amongst other things that reform of stevedoring practices could reduce costs by around $50 a TEU. With 2.1 million containers per year that would save at least $100 million a year directly. Australian ports charge up to three times more than foreign ports. One in five ships using Australian ports is delayed by more than four hours and port delays cost shipping companies around $500,000 a year per company. Further facts that the House and Australians need to consider are that the Australian waterfront is 40 per cent overmanned. That is despite $420 million having been expended by the previous government—$160 million of it taxpayers' money—and despite the redundancies offered to almost 5,000 waterside workers.Some people have said in the last couple of months that this dispute is disruptive. The fact is that we already have disruption. Australia represents one per cent of world trade and two per cent of world marine trade, yet we have 23 per cent of the world's maritime strikes. It costs $200 to move each of the 2½ million containers across the wharves annually; $500 million a year. If the NFF's P&C Stevedores can, as they claim, with their non-unionised labour reduce costs by 25 to 40 per cent, thereby saving $150 to $200 million a year, why not let them have a go?If the MUA is so efficient and so good at moving containers and generalised cargo across the wharves, it should have nothing to worry about from a non-unionised labour force. The Australian five-port average of 18.5 crane movements per hour is 45 per cent below the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics modest benchmark of 25 an hour. In 1997 we lost 930 working days per thousand employees in this industry—12 times an all-industry average.When the ALP's $430 million Waterfront Industry Reform Authority wound up in 1992 its chairman described it as `an outstanding success with major improvements in productivity and reliability'. We were then moving 20.1 containers an hour; we are now moving 18.5. We rate last among comparable ports for productivity, reliability and cost. Australia's ports fill six of the seven bottom places for the 18 comparable ports, according to the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics. We are doing considerably worse than countries like Mozambique.A lot has been made in the last couple of months, and indeed in this debate, about the exercise in Dubai. My attitude to that is, firstly, why is it necessary for people to have to go to Dubai to train a work force to work on Australia's waterfront? It is because the intimidation and thuggery, both political and I must say physical, of the MUA and some of its members require them to do that. People have been wearing balaclavas—that sort of thing—not because they are imposing some very nasty and offensive regime on other people; it is because they are protecting themselves. Dr Theophanous interjecting—RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—One of the things I learned as a boy hanging around the ships, my friend, is that if you spoke up against the MUA and its members you would find yourself over the side of the ship with two broken legs. That is the way these people work.The second point is that if the government was not involved in Dubai, why wasn't it? As a government we have a responsibility to the next generation. Whatever your politics—whether they are Labor, Liberal, Democrat or National Party—the fact is that at the end of World War II there were 100 segmented markets throughout the world. We are now coalescing down to three major trading blocs. We are 0.6 per cent of world population and one per cent of world trade. Unless we have taxation, regulatory, transport, energy, communications and waterfront reform, my children do not have a realistic prospect of a job. That is what it is all about.We are no longer a closed economy. We cannot afford to pay people considerably more than they are worth for what they are doing. Every day when BHP closes its steelworks, when Berlei says it is going to relocate out of Australia in Asia, as many other companies have done, Australians quite rightly wring their hands and say, `Why is this so?' One of the reasons is transport costs—not only getting your manufactured goods and your commodities to the wharves but getting them across the wharves in an affordable, timely and reliable manner.If we do not compete with the rest of the world, this country does not have a future and, whether our children are the sons and daughters of Labor or Liberal members, we are abrogating our responsibilities to them. That is what the dispute is all about. It is about being a part of the modern economy. It is about securing the economic and social future for our children. It is also about a fundamental principle, that is, by all means we encourage and we support people being members of unions and being represented by them if that is their choice but equally we support the right of people not to be members of a union and to negotiate their own arrangements with their employers, and to ensure, as we have done with the Workplace Relations Act, that there is a safety net underneath them and that they are supported by reasonable statutory provisions.I strongly commend these bills to the House. I would also like to commend, in particular, the way in which the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has conducted himself on behalf of the government and, more importantly, on behalf of all Australians in relation to this. This man has courage and it is not often you see it in politics.19:07:003239Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Speaking after the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson), who is the ex-president of the country's strongest, most rigid and most vicious union, the AMA, and remembering their strike in 1983-84 over Medicare, I find his comments absolutely fascinating. There is hypocrisy embodied in those remarks, particularly the concluding ones. The rigidity shown by the current Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) is matched only by the rigidity shown by the AMA. Perhaps that is why the mutual praise society and back scratching is going on; perhaps they have something in common.This debate to date has been marked by its absolute deceptiveness. This whole issue is one in which the Australian public are being misled, the parliament is being misled, people are being demonised, families are being torn apart and enormous damage is being done to this country. It is very difficult to bring a context to all of this because so much has occurred since the government set out, after its election in 1996, on a path to destroy not just one union but two: the MUA and the CFMEU—the waterfront and seaman's union and the mining union. That was a stated objective, to take them on. In any language that means going to war.I have been warning the Newcastle community for eight or nine months now that we would probably end up being the victims of this vendetta. And we are, right now. Ours is a community that has worked incredibly hard at industrial relations reform and has done enormously well at restructuring workplaces and awards, removing demarcation and completely changing the relationship between workers and their management. Yet we are now seen as being a bad port. We are not a bad port and we were not a bad port, but we are now being demonised as one by this government and by their co-conspirators, Patrick's.Some weeks back I called on Patrick's to leave Newcastle; either get back to work or get out. What is interesting here is that, in this drive for efficiency, Mr Corrigan and his company now want to milk a contract. They want to introduce an extra layer of profit taking. They want to keep the contract for themselves and then sublet it to somebody else to do the work. In other words, it is an extra layer of profit. That is disgraceful. For a government that is supposed to be about efficiency to be supporting a company which is intruding an additional layer of profit into the cost of stevedoring is disgraceful. Patrick's are trying every trick in the book to, firstly, defy the court order to restore the contracts as they were at 6 April and, secondly, to pretend that somehow Newcastle has been a problem.At this stage I want to particularly pay tribute to the workers in Newcastle and perhaps even more so to the people who are not in the MUA but who have taken part in the peaceful demonstrations. I have been over to the wharves in Newcastle on a number of occasions in recent weeks and on one of those occasions there was a ship being berthed. Let me assure you that, among the number of people there, the MUA were by far the minority. The majority of people there were people who were generally concerned about what this government is doing to the relationship between workers and their management, between labour and capital.It is more than ironic that the day after a budget in which the government has vastly underestimated the implications of the Asian problems, against which we have been told for nine months that we are fireproofed, they are now conceding that perhaps we are not fully fireproofed. If we ever needed unity of labour and capital, if we ever needed commonality of purpose and a total, single, unified national effort between our workers and their management, this is the time right now. This next six months we are facing are, from my observation, perhaps the most critical since the crisis of 1982. In my view, we are facing a major crisis.In areas which are absolutely critical to our economic future—export of mining product, particularly coal, from the biggest port in the country, Newcastle—the government and Rio Tinto are trying to rip apart the system by trying to force down wages and destroy relationships. The relationship between Rio Tinto and its workers is disgraceful and will not lead to increased productivity or improved performance. At the same time, anybody looking at using the port of Newcastle and listening to what Patrick's and Mr Corrigan are saying about Newcastle would have second thoughts. More importantly, our competition—the people who export against us—whether they are from South America or from other parts of Asia or from South Africa, must be absolutely delighted that at a time when unity is so critical the government is leading the charge to war. We have not had an industrial war in this country for quite some time. The last major one, which from recollection was in 1981, was concluded by the wedding of the Prince of Wales. The then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, left the country to go to the wedding and settled the dispute before he left.What we have now is a government leading the charge to war. Of course, the victim of that war will end up not being the MUA but the Australian economy because this economy is incredibly exposed. The forecast last night of three per cent growth in the next year, to my mind, is fanciful at best and dangerous at worst because it will lead to a sense of complacency. I think that is now of major concern. As I said, I have no doubt that our competition in world trade are rubbing their hands in glee that a government could be so stupid as to embark on such an escapade, such an adventure, such a foolhardy exercise at this point in the international economic cycle when we, of all countries, are probably the most exposed country in the world in view of what is happening to our north.For what purpose? What kind of gain are we talking about? One can hear and read all the comments made earlier. We have heard figures quoted to us over and over. We have heard the National Farmers Federation talk about how much it is going to cost them. I read with some interest a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 April by Captain Harry Mansson from Clareville. He makes it clear at the start that he, as a full-time professional on the waterfront for 44 years, was in the management side. He makes it clear that he has no particular sympathies. He does have some quite strong remarks to make about the wharf experiences he had at the time. He then goes into working out the actual effect of the so-called reform that the government is seeking. He suggests, in a fairly detailed analysis, that we are talking about $4.85 per container.He then goes further and looks at the cost with respect to beef and wool. He ends up with a saving of $55 per container of wool—equivalent to .028 per cent of the price of wool; and the saving is .149 per cent of the price of beef. He quite carefully puts on that the maximum values of the savings the government is claiming they hope to achieve. He then goes on to point out that the price of wool might change by 0.5 per cent per day. In fact, the drop in the currency in the past 24 hours, particularly since the budget—which again is insightful—has done vastly more to change the price and the cost effectiveness of our competition in wool, wheat and any other product than any of the changes even remotely put forward by the government in these proposals. So the idea that somehow this waterfront reform is going to save us a lot of money and make us much more competitive is, and always has been, nonsensical.In fact, the letter from Captain Mansson was responded to by some other individuals and Captain Mansson bought back into the issue on 29 April. Again, he made the point that a one cent change in the exchange rate would have a $330 million a year impact on our trade. As I said, we have had half of that much effect in the last 24 hours; certainly in the last few days we have had much more than that. So while the government on one hand is out there slugging it out at war with its own community in a most partisan display of ignorance and victim bashing, the currency is falling through the floor, our competition are laughing all the way to their sales and to the north the Asian crisis is worsening. What kind of government is it that, when the major issue facing the country is in fact the Asian crisis, is throwing petrol on the flames and adding fuel to the fire? As I said, last night's budget does not take into account what is occurring to our north to anything like a serious or sufficient degree.In looking at this issue, I want to quote from some research notes from the Parliamentary Library because I think that we all accept, trust and respect the Parliamentary Library as a bipartisan and certainly totally neutral commentator on national matters. I want to read a couple of quotes from their Research Note No. 43, 1997-98, which goes to the question of how you compare countries, port to port. It states:One factor is that in Australian circumstances in which ships are more likely to offload at a multiple of ports these indicators are dependent on the efficiency of the way ships are stowed. If containers are well arranged the loading and unloading task will be simplified and hence more efficient.Another is that these measures may be dependent on the percentage of the entire ship's cargo that is handled at any particular port. In this context note that it is in general more efficient to exchange the entire container cargo of a ship than it is to exchange only a proportion of it.Yet another is that the measured values are dependent on the characteristics of the ships being loaded and unloaded and of the ports. More modern and better equipped ships and ports will in general lead to easier load and unloading.If one looks at the ports of Singapore or Hong Kong—as I have, and I am sure many other members have over time—one would see ships come in, the whole cargo being unloaded and a whole new cargo loaded—a complete transfer. Those ports are very efficient and they do it very quickly. If you go and look at Sydney or at the main five ports in Australia which deal with containers—sometimes Newcastle, but Newcastle is not primarily a container port; it is very much a secondary role there—you will see the exchange rate might be 30 or 40 per cent. Thirty or 40 per cent of the containers will be taken off and 30 or 40 per cent of the containers will be put back on. That 30 or 40 per cent are not sitting by themselves; there is not a hole left for them to be loaded into. Ships have to be loaded with the heaviest containers at the bottom, so it can mean rearranging two-thirds of the containers on the ship to absorb 30 or 40 per cent. It will vary enormously from ship to ship and from port to port. How many cranes they have operational over a ship is also relevant as to whether or not they can actually activate more than one loading crane at a time.That is why the Drury report states that, when you compare the nature of Australian container loads and ports, the rate of 19.3 or so is about world's best practice. We are not far behind that. To suggest that 25 containers an hour is in fact a benchmark would probably be unwise. One can recall one day this week the minister went on one of his usual demonising exercises, which as a rule here has become so outrageous and so grotesque. He is almost a caricature of himself, which is almost impossible to imagine. It is almost impossible to imagine the minister caricaturing himself, but he actually does these days. He actually cited the number of containers loaded in the last two hours. What he was really talking about was: a ship which came in, unloaded part of its load, rearranged its containers and then loaded up its final load. So he took the last two hours, which of course were straight loading and nothing else with a prepared ship, which would be at the maximum rate.The figures on that would be entirely different from the rate across the total time the ship was at the dock. The minister understands that. This is not news to him, the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) or to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). We all know it. We have access to the country's best information systems, as I indicated before when I talked about the reports that are available within the Parliamentary Library. This is not news to us, but it is news to a lot of the public when they hear about container load rates—14, 18 or 25 containers an hour—and think, `Isn't that dreadful?' The member for Bradfield talked about us being last, but he did not say that the ports he was comparing us with predominantly load and unload total ships. You do not see Rotterdam, Singapore or Hong Kong loading and unloading 30 per cent of the cargo. We know that and so does he.This attempt to deliberately deceive and mislead the parliament and the public is reprehensible. And one asks: why? I think people have worked out for themselves that this is not about the MUA, it is not about containers, it is not about port efficiency and it is not about competition in trade. If it were, we would not be doing it right now, particularly with an international crisis on our hands. The worst thing we can do for trade right now is to have this kind of war. It is not about any of those things. It is about breaking the back of organised labour. This Prime Minister wants to be the Margaret Thatcher of Australia. He wants to be the one who broke organised labour in Australia. That is what this is about. There is no other logical explanation. Look at the rhetoric, the deceit, the deception, the lies, the distortions, the demonising—and look at the cost. What has it cost us so far? Articles in today's papers talk about half a billion dollars to date, and to achieve what? A possible saving of a maximum of $100 million a year in trade.This does not make sense. We have lost half a billion dollars. We have now become an unstable supplier, an unreliable port and an unreliable shipper. God knows how much that is going to cost in future competition and future credibility—credibility we spent years building up. The workers of this country, including the workers of Newcastle, have worked incredibly hard to build a reputation for reliability. In a matter of months, this government has succeeded in destroying that. For that, it is accountable.We keep hearing about voluntary unionism, but what they are really saying is, `There is nothing wrong with people organising as a group and negotiating their conditions and awards, but why should Joe Blow help pay the cost of that?' They are really saying that people in a work force should be freeloaders on the rest of them—in other words, union members should pay the cost of negotiation, arbitration, health and safety, occupational changes and award restructuring. They are saying that the costs should be borne only by those who choose to. The people who benefit from the improvements in conditions and circumstances should not have to pay any part of that cost. The government is suggesting that people should be freeloaders on their workmates, and even if they don't want to be they are being forced to be.This whole issue has been concocted in malice, it is being conducted with malevolence and the eventual and real victims will not be the unions or Corrigan—although he has been destroyed already, and the minister has no future—but the Australian economy and the Australian people. This minister is throwing fuel on the firestorm of Asia. The bushfire that we are likely to have will become a maelstrom and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business will be responsible and accountable. (Time expired)19:27:003242Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 were introduced into the House some weeks ago to fund restructuring on the waterfront and to ensure that the industry, and not the taxpayer, is responsible for this funding.As we all know, we live in a democracy and we run a market economy. In the last decade or so we have seen the collapse of communism, and throughout the world and even in eastern Europe we have seen the acceptance of the market economy with private enterprise to the fore. I do not think this is because of some philosophical, ideological drive, but more because people can see that that is the preferred way to organise our economic systems. It is consistent with an open and free democratic way of life.The current waterfront debate is about the value of human activity contributing to the wellbeing of the nation, the individual and the community. The previous Labor government—with the WIRA approach to waterfront reform in the late 1980s and early 1990s—under Prime Minister Bob Hawke did not achieve complete waterfront reform. In fact, it achieved quite limited waterfront reform. It became quite common knowledge that employees of the stevedoring companies were receiving significant redundancy payments. They would go out on a Friday with payments up to $300,000 or $400,000 and come back on the Monday morning on casual rates, which were significantly higher than the rates they were on when they left. That was common knowledge throughout the community, and I think many Australians believed that was inappropriate, wrong and not in the national interest. At the end of the day, a government—particularly a federal government—is judged by what is in the national interest.Debate interrupted.Adjournment324310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.324319:30:003243Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Tonight I wish to raise a couple of matters which affect veterans. I am sure that like me, Mr Speaker, you had quite a lot of contact with veterans in your electorate and throughout the country, no doubt, in the discharge of your responsibilities as Speaker of the House of Representatives during the Anzac Day commemorations.Several of the veterans on the New South Wales Central Coast approached me on Anzac Day about a number of issues that are concerning them. In particular, they have raised with me some changes that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is making to community nursing. In many cases, veterans who suffer from war-caused disabilities and are receiving special treatment in their homes have, in the past, had registered nurses visiting them at home to provide the care and assistance they need. There have been occasions when it has been these registered nurses who have been the ones who have picked up that a veteran might have suffered a mild stroke or have been alerted to the fact that a particular condition requires attention, and that has ensured that veterans visit their GP or are admitted to hospital if that level of acute care is required. Having the registered nurses visit the veterans in their homes has, in many cases, not only made a great difference to the life of the veteran and looked after their health care but also probably saved the taxpayer money because it has made sure that the veterans get the attention at the earliest opportunity.The changes that the government is making are apparently resulting in a switch from the use of registered nurses to enrolled nurses or nurses aides in many cases. While that will save the government money, there will be occasions for veterans in all of our electorates when conditions previously picked up by registered nurses—mild strokes, disabilities or conditions that need treatment—will now no longer be picked up, and it is an issue that has caused a great deal of concern. I would like to read a letter from one veteran from Long Jetty in my electorate. The letter reads:Dear Mr Lee,I am a veteran and I am concerned at the proposed changes to the domiciliary nursing service provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In particular, I am concerned about the level the nursing service will reach when the changes are implemented, not only for myself but also for other veterans who may be more dependent on the service now or in the future. I understand that the changes will save the department money and, in saying this, I have no doubt that it will carry with it a detrimental effect to veterans. Could you please raise these concerns to the minister on my behalf?I have also received a letter from the Central Coast Nursing Service, which states, in part:The Central Coast Nursing Service (CCNS) provides community nursing care to veterans and war widows in your electorate. There is a real possibility that unless the Department can guarantee adequate funding for the home nursing care of these veterans and war widows the impact of these reforms will be to severely downgrade the care of some of your constituents.As of today,—this was written on 21 April—with less than 2 weeks to implementation, the Department cannot provide CCNS with details of the funding available for the care of these veterans and war widows, which will determine the frequency and level of care CCNS can provide.It is our estimation that if home nursing care levels for the veterans and war widows CCNS care for are reduced, 70-80% of them could end up in hospital or institutional care. Many have already been assessed for admission to nursing homes, and are only cared for by CCNS until nursing home places become available.So you can see there is a concern not only amongst the veterans but also amongst those people who are providing that care to veterans, and we can only ask that the government and the department give serious consideration to the impact that these changes are having on veterans. Sure, the government likes to save money on the provision of services to veterans, but I think it would be a sad day if the cutbacks that this government is making in veterans' affairs affects the access that the veterans have to nursing services.I see the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) is clicking her tongue and perhaps that indicates that she does not believe that the veterans in her electorate are going to be hit in this way. I would certainly challenge her to indicate whether she supports these changes that the government is making.Mrs Gash interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I acknowledge the interjection from the member for Gilmore and her claim that this is a scare campaign. I would certainly make sure that veterans organisations in her electorate realise that she has not been prepared to speak up in favour of veterans in her electorate getting access to registered nurses. (Time expired)324419:35:003244Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I rise in this adjournment debate to pay a tribute tonight to David Bernard Vigor, former senator and former constituent of mine. It struck me when we as a chamber rose yesterday morning briefly to pay a tribute to David Vigor that there were many in this chamber who knew nothing of this quite unique human being, so I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my recollection of a truly unique man.I knew David Vigor because I was his member. We did not belong to the same political party, but we had an affinity. I found David Vigor a very accommodating human being who, as I said earlier, could only be described as someone who was quite unique. In all of the tributes that would have been paid to former Senator Vigor in the other place, he will be principally remembered as a senator who served the Australian Democrats from 1984 to 1987. It is rather sad that, for someone who only left this parliament 10 years ago, so few members of the parliament remember and know him as I remember and knew him as his member. David was never narrowly partisan in his view of the world. In fact, I am immodest enough to suggest that there may have been occasions in the ballot box when he actually supported me, such was his general sort of all-embracing view of life.Those of us who knew him will remember him as a tenacious questioner, as someone who pursued in Senate committees particular passions that he had with a real vigour. We will also remember him for the key role that he played in a number of all too easily forgotten issues, such as stopping smoking in aircraft. As a senator there is no doubt that he made a real contribution on behalf of his state, but it was in fact as an individual that he was unique. David Vigor was born in France and came to Australia when he was 12 years old. It is a sad fact of life that he died when he was only 58 of an unexpected heart attack on his property at Rosedale in the Barossa Valley.He was, as I said, totally without pretence. David Vigor was a computer genius who studied pure mathematics at Adelaide High and went on to major in it at the University of Adelaide. He was one of the first two research students at Monash in the years from 1960 to 1964, and he then went to Glasgow to help set up the first computer program in their hospital. He was without pretence because he chose on his return to Australia with his wife, Susan, to buy a farm on the edge of the Barossa Valley at a little place called Rosedale. But he never pretended to be a farmer; rather, he continued to be a computer genius, building his own computer company in a very unassuming barn that he had converted for the purpose on the farm.He was totally non-materialistic. He was a very successful computer developer, but totally unselfish in the way in which he used his resources for the good of others and in the development of the computer facility which he believed showed so much promise. In fact, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me and, I know, to his wife, Susan, and their seven children, that their father was able to watch the launch of the software that he developed for the dental research facility at the University of Adelaide on the day before his death. He was a person who was fascinating company. In academic terms we had little in common and in rural terms I suppose we had little in common, but I found in him an individual who wanted to know what other people were doing and why and, as I said, he was always gracious in the way in which he heard them out.I want to pay tribute to someone who was a family man and who leaves a wife, seven children and grandchildren who bereave his premature passing, and to a South Australian who pursued the things that he believed in with passion and in a non-partisan way and who, in his own way, made a real contribution to the particular interests he had. He was a computer pioneer, an academic and a South Australian whose life we can honour in this way. I simply rise to express my sympathy and the sympathy of all those in this parliament to Susan and the children.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Hear, hear!324519:40:003245Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Last night the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced the first surplus budget delivered by a coalition government in the history of the Commonwealth—their first. Labor in fact delivered four surplus budgets during its last period of office.Tonight I wish to speak about one of the micro elements of what has happened in the last two years in terms of the Treasurer, the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office. Almost two years ago, when I was fighting a by-election in Blaxland, I gave an indication to the electors that there was a possibility that the Bankstown Taxation Office would be closed because this government had come to power. Two years down the track, the Bankstown Taxation Office is still slated for closure in June this year.By the time my by-election occurred there had been a statement—the ATO Business 2000 statement—which said that the 680 people who worked in the Bankstown Taxation Office would have another 120 people added to their number. In other words, the Taxation Office would not only stay but also be increased to a full complement of 800 people. The particular job they would be doing—auditing small business and business within the Bankstown area—would continue, as would their other functions. Not six months after that first draft report was brought down, and after I came into this place, the Taxation Office decided to entirely do away with the Bankstown Taxation Office by June this year. It was decided to disperse all those 680 people to other offices, primarily to Hurstville and to Parramatta, and to close the Bankstown office. The Taxation Office also sought to sublease the premises.Today 220 people still work in the Bankstown Taxation Office. Of the seven floors of that office, the entire top floor is occupied by one person who is about to go to Hurstville. There are no other individuals occupying that space. Out the front there is a major sign which says there are only three floors to lease. One person on the top floor takes out one of the seven floors. There are three floors to be leased and three floors are taken up by the 220 people who are there.It has been conservatively estimated that the Taxation Office is paying out as dead money $5.6 to $5.7 million a year for the lease of the Bankstown Taxation Office. There has been no subleasing to any individual or organisation and the full cost of the original lease is being paid by the Taxation Office. There is no prospect—as there has not been for the last two years—that a building that was specifically built to house the Taxation Office will be subleased to anyone else. The 220 people in the superannuation section cannot be moved anywhere else because there is not any space in the Hurstville office or the Parramatta office, and in those two offices the people who have been moved out have been cramped together. There are also indications that in a few years time the Taxation Office will actually close that Hurstville office, therefore creating a greater problem for themselves.The prospect is that the 220 people who have still got jobs will continue to be there. The sum of $5.6 million or so each year is being paid out. By the time the original lease is finished in 2002, it is likely that this government will waste, through the Taxation Office, the sum of around $22 million in dead rent.So much for the Treasurer and the Taxation Office being concerned with what happens at the micro level and, of course, with the dramatic impact of taking so many people out of the Bankstown economy. Further to that, not only have they crushed people into the Hurstville and Parramatta offices but also they have people working from home, using modems and working as telecommuters, because they cannot fit them into the existing offices.This decision to close the Bankstown Taxation Office, to undo the decentralisation of taxation offices around Australia, and therefore to sublease and save money, has failed. I ask the Treasurer, who has refused to speak to people from Bankstown Council and to people from Taxation, to finally, at this point in time, save the dead money that has been incurred already and will be incurred in the future, reinstate the 680 people in the Bankstown Taxation Office, put the other 120 in, save money and do good for the Australian people. (Time expired)324619:45:003246Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise tonight to add my voice to welcoming the 1998-99 budget—a budget which is in the black and which is back on track, particularly for the residents of my electorate of Gilmore. In Gilmore, as with the rest of Australia, people understand that we can no longer live beyond our means. Labor showed us its policies when it announced the `recession we had to have'. Interest rates and unemployment skyrocketed under its dismal failure to arrest debt.In our third budget we are now back on track, turning Labor's $10.3 billion deficit into a $2.9 million surplus. Gilmore residents understand that you cannot keep borrowing from overseas, as Labor has done, and to have a budget surplus for the first time in many years is a major step towards providing a vision for this country. Gilmore people have said they do not want to keep paying millions of dollars in interest to overseas countries when we could be using that money for services for the Australian people. Gilmore people are welcoming the fact that we are now living within our means and that this will continue under the coalition government.More specifically, Mr Speaker, the residents of Gilmore are welcoming the news that there is more funding for health, more assistance for young people to get a job, more investment in our local area, and a commitment to improving the economy. Already Gilmore home buyers are benefiting by saving $3,800 a year on home loan interest rates, which have dropped in the first two years of this government. We have the lowest inflation in decades and unemployment, while still too high, is the lowest it has been for eight years. In particular, the further reduction in the provisional tax uplift factor to five per cent, which will save Australian businesses up to $75 million a year, will help Gilmore small businesses. With small business a major employer, this is a further incentive for business owners to inject the money they have saved into giving more Gilmore people jobs.An allocation of $26 million for the redevelopment and upgrading of HMAS Albatross will increase prospects for local employment, both directly in the construction phase as well as indirectly through the benefits of increased personnel and wages going into local businesses. This program will be worth more than $115 million overall—and that is $115 million going to local contractors and businesses—as well as being the forerunner to an estimated doubling of the number of defence personnel serving at the base.Self-funded retirees, of whom there are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 in Gilmore, have received a huge boost with the extension of their access to the health care card. This means an extra 220,000 Australians will now have access to prescriptions at the concessional rate. This is one of the biggest issues of concern which has been raised with me over the past two years. We have now delivered on this need, as well as the previously announced extension of the gold card benefits for World War II veterans. Both of these commitments have been honoured and will benefit thousands of our veterans and retirees in Gilmore.Mr Speaker, I stand before you once again on the subject of main road 92, or the Shoalhaven Highway, a major road project linking Nowra across the ranges to the Hume Highway and of course to Canberra. Already local residents have celebrated this government's commitment to help fund the road, through the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that main road 92 is now a road of national importance. I would like to add that it is the coalition government which introduced the funding for the category of roads of national importance, and it is the Labor Party which voted against funding this category at its 1998 conference. The Labor Party will not fund main road 92. Its own policy says so.However, the federal government confirmed its position with last night's budget, which has allocated $111.65 million for roads of national importance, which includes main road 92, from Nowra to Braidwood. As soon as the route selection study currently under way determines the alignment and cost of the road, this government will commit to funding main road 92. After 20 years of pushing for the upgrade of this road, the people of Gilmore are still being told by the Labor Party that it is not important enough and that the Labor Party will not fund it.In other budget measures, another 200 Medicare easy claim offices will be opened up throughout Australia, giving people living in rural and regional areas simpler, faster and easier access to Medicare claims, without having to travel to metropolitan cities or other major towns. Free flu vaccine for our elderly and an extra $2.9 billion for public health over the next five years will also benefit residents in the highlands and on the coast.Gilmore has also welcomed the news of a new community legal centre to be established on the south coast, one of six to be established throughout Australia, which will pro vide better access to legal services in one of the highest need areas in Australia.The landcare tax rebate for our primary producers is a major initiative and incentive to assist in the fight against land degradation, weed infestation and devegetation—giving 34c in the dollar for tax relief to farmers. I could go on and on about the benefits of the 1998-99 budget for the people of Gilmore, but it needs to be stressed that we are now back in the black and the people of Gilmore are very pleased. We are now living back within our means and not leaving the debt for someone else, for our children and grandchildren, to bear the brunt of. I welcome the major measures in this budget, which will see more investment, more jobs and more support for families and the environment in Gilmore. (Time expired)324719:50:003247Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Tonight in the national parliament of Australia I call on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to give his personal and immediate attention on humanitarian grounds to the massive human emergency that is being faced by residents of south Sudan. I received a fax only a couple of days ago from Medecins Sans Frontieres, which translates into Doctors Without Borders, headed `Sudan—Emergency'. It states:Today, in South Sudan, the medical teams of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF . . . ) have a massive human emergency on their hands. We estimate that 350,000 people are at risk of starvation.The only way to reach the majority of areas where the starvation is severe is by plane. Government flight clearances are restricted and rains are due in July—after this time we will be unable to use most of the airstrips and roads. We have very little time left.In the province of Bahr-el-Ghazal, MSF has set up seven feeding centres and already our voluntary medical staff are caring for more than 2,900 severely malnourished children. But we suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg. Every week hundreds more children come to us for help.Without assistance, starving children die in a few days. But when MSF doctors are given resources, these children can be on their feet within a few weeks. We don't need sophisticated support, or expensive drugs to give a child back the gift of life. Only oil, milk, sugar, vitamins and antibiotics.I also received only a few days ago a fax from Austcare, dated May 1998. Its banner headline reads:One Million Starving in SudanAUSTCARE Launches Aid Operation.The first four paragraphs in that press release state:Australian aid agency AUSTCARE, has launched an emergency operation to assist in providing food for over a million people now affected by the devastating famine in Sudan."The crisis in Sudan is as bad as any I have seen and the need to act is most urgent," said AUSTCARE Chief Executive, Warren Glenny.Each day, over 140 people are starving to death near the town of Rumbek in Southern Sudan. About 50 of those who die each day are children.To date, very little if any food has been sent to the starving people of Rumbek County. The situation is desperate.In calling for the Prime Minister's personal intervention, I want to say that since 1989 the Islamic fundamentalist military government of Sudan has been waging a genocidal war against the indigenous African Christians in the south, Nuba Mountains in south-western Sudan and Ingessina Hills in south-eastern Sudan. This war situation and the failure of seasonal rains have resulted in the worst famine in southern Sudan, particularly the Bahr al-Ghazal region, affecting an estimated population of 2.48 million people, according to the figures provided by the United Nations.The government of Sudan has been using famine as a weapon of war by preventing aid planes from flying into the most severely affected regions. I call on the Prime Minister and the Australian government to show concern about this humanitarian catastrophe in the Sudan. I suggest that the following action be taken with urgency. First, the Australian government and non-governmental organisations should launch an emergency relief program to southern Sudan, the Bahr al-Ghazal region. As I said earlier, Austcare has already taken the lead in this regard. Second, the Australian government should make efforts to apply pressure on the Sudanese government to allow relief flights into the famine stricken regions, including the Nuba Mountains. Third, the Australian government should lobby and sponsor an arms embargo on the government of Sudan. Fourth, the Australian government should support self-determination and referendum for the peoples of the south, the Nuba, the Ingessina and all other marginalised areas of the Sudan through the IGADD peace mediation program. The Australian government should pressure the government of Sudan to withdraw their troops from the south and demonstrate a willingness to participate in the genuine attempt at considering the recent offer of self-determination put forward by the residents of the south.This is one of the great tragedies that is happening, of which very little information has been supplied in the general media. It is an extremely serious situation. One-third of a million human beings could die within the next few weeks. We must make sure, as a civilised nation, that we take every step possible to ensure that the risk of loss of life is minimised and that a peaceful resolution can be obtained in south Sudan.324819:55:003248Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to a very special group of people, the recipients of the 1998 Forde community contribution awards. I established the awards as a way for the local community to say thank you to those very special people who work quietly and tirelessly in voluntary organisations. These are the people who give our community its heart and soul and never seek recognition for their efforts. They are modest, dedicated people who believe in helping others and who make our local area a much better place to live because of their contributions and their dedication to hard work.I was pleased this year to be able to recognise 28 local residents in a very small way and to say thank you to them wholeheartedly on behalf of a very grateful community. I want to bring their outstanding efforts to the attention of this House. I thank Ron Alden for his tremendous work with Meals on Wheels. Ron is 91, and over the past 10 years he has worked three days a week, never missing a week. Judy Brookes was nominated for her dedication to a very caring approach to running a respite centre, and local residents appreciate the fact that she goes above and beyond the call of duty to help those in need.I thank Paul Cowan for his work to establish a heart monitor fund for the Tamborine Mountain elderly. He also works in the Mount Tamborine show committee and for many years has supported people with disabilities. Eve Curtis was nominated for her 30 years voluntary work on the Tamborine News, a great community newspaper. Eve has been the driving force for all those years. I thank Tom Day and Ellen Day for the tremendous work they both do for the Beaudesert senior citizens, national seniors and Blue Nurses. Scott Dore is a young man who has assisted at the Beaudesert library and is one of our very brave volunteers who volunteered to fight in the devastating fires in New South Wales last year. Esme Greensil has spent some 28 years working on the Wongaburra Ladies Auxiliary, and she has assisted with the Wongaburra garden settlement canteen ever since it began. Esme is also an active member of the Anglican Church and the Beaudesert Hospital Auxiliary. She is also a member of the veterans division of the Beaudesert Golf Club.Charlie Hart and Hazel Hart were nominated for their tireless work with Meals on Wheels. I understand they have been involved since Meals on Wheels first began in Beaudesert, and that is over 30 years ago—a quite remarkable contribution. Jan Joyce was nominated for her dedication as President of the United Graziers Association. Jan packed many parcels and fundraised locally for our drought stricken farmers out west. Jack Lewis is 90, and I understand he has been the President of the Historical Society for over 20 years and has been instrumental in the great work the society does in preserving our local history and culture.Ian Martin has been a very important member of the Tamborine community for many years and a member of the rural fire brigade for over 30 years. He has been a member of the Tamborine Rotary, a member of the Tamborine memorial hall committee for around 35 years and the Tamborine and District Citizens Association for 15 years. What an enormous contribution. I thank Trevlyn Morgan for his many years of planting hundreds of trees in the national parks on Tamborine Mountain. Trev began as a bush volunteer and has donated considerable resources and time on various projects that he has worked on. Trev will be 80 next year, and he still gets up every morning and is working on a current project of planting and weeding Kath Dobbie Park.Doreen Nason is Vice-President of the Ladies Hospital Auxiliary, the Moogerah passion play catering committee, the Boonah Blue Nurses day respite centre in Trefoil, the association for past girl guides, for the past four years. Merv Silcox and Elaine Silcox were nominated for their efforts as members of the Beaudesert senior citizens, the Historical Association, Probus and the national seniors. Mac Smith, a very well known local person, was nominated for his hard work with the Senior Citizens Association, Wongaburra Day Respite Centre, and has for many years supported people with disabilities. Lauraine Summers, conveyor of the Wongaburra Ladies Auxiliary for the past 13 years, has worked hard as a member of the Uniting Church Blue Nurses, the Senior Citizens Association and the Queensland Cancer Fund. Lauraine is described as always being there in a time of need, no matter what that need may be. Marge Wheatley was nominated for her untiring work in the Salvation Army thrift shop, where she has helped lots of people over many years.I am pleased to be able to stand in this parliament tonight and thank them all once again. I believe their sense of community spirit is what helps enrich and brighten the lives of many others. The community is very grateful for their work, and I am honoured to be able to represent these people in the federal parliament. I am sure that many members here would be proud to have constituents such as these.324920:00:003249Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to reply to the comments made by the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) in this House in the last sitting session. It was the most extraordi nary vicious and personal attacks on one the members in this place that I have ever heard, and the person so vehemently attacked was none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the leader of our country. The reason for the attack is that the member opposite believes because the Prime Minister wore shorts and long white socks during the sixties, did not drive a tie-dyed kombi van, was not out there demonstrating against the Vietnam War or listening to the Doors that somehow this makes him somewhat unable to lead the country. The comments of the members opposite obviously demonstrate that he missed the very essence of what the flower power children of the sixties were trying to convey.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—With regret, I am afraid, the debate must be interrupted.20:01:003250House adjourned at 8.01 p.m.Notices3250The following notices were given:Mr Filing to move:That this House calls on the Australian Government to:(1) immediately allocate whatever funds are required to meet the shortfall for construction of a war memorial in Canberra to Australia's participation in the Korean War; and(2) undertake to celebrate a consecration of the memorial to demonstrate that, despite the more than 45 years since that conflict ended, the importance of Australia's contribution to this major UN operation is respected by both the Government and the broader community.Mr Pyne to move:That this House:(1) agrees that the friendship between the people of Australia and the people of Israel must continue to strengthen;(2) commends the achievements of the State of Israel during the past 50 years in its society, science, technology and culture;(3) acknowledges that, despite Israel's accomplishments over the last 50 years, their struggle for survival continues;(4) supports Israel's peace agreements with its neighbours; and(5) encourages the striving for full peace in the nations of the Middle East.Mr McClelland to move:That this House:(1) notes that the Commonwealth Government has reduced its contribution to legal aid by 21 per cent in 1997-98 which now ranks among the Government's lowest funding priorities;(2) further notes that such a significant and rapid reduction in funding has meant that many services are no longer available to those in the community most at risk and most in need; and(3) confirms that affordable access to the justice system is the right of every Australian and demands that the Government immediately restore funding to reverse the current legal aid funding crisis.Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to wheat marketing, and for related purposes.Mr Warwick Smith to present a bill for an act to establish the film licensed investment company scheme, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend legislation making provision relating to anti-dumping measures, and for related purposes.Documents3250The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 May 1998:Child Care Act—Determination 1998 Child Care (High Need Regions).Guidelines 1998 Child Care (Eligibility-New Allocations).Defence Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. 18, 19.Migration Act—Statement under section 351.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation 1998 No. 2.1998-05-13Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before calling the clerk I welcome all to the first sitting of the Main Committee in the second decade of this Parliament House.Bills3251r4373251Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:003251Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , which will be finalised today before going back into the main chamber. As we all would know, the human cost of marriages or relationships breaking up, where children are involved, is enormous. Clearly, this legislation aims to provide a more equitable distribution to both custodial and non-custodial parents, particularly keeping in mind it is the children in those marriages that need to be cared for. Today in Australia two out of every three marriages will fail. They may not all involve children, but a large percentage do.Two things are certain: Australia does need the Child Support Agency, but certainly there is room for improvement. Why do we need the Child Support Agency? This was established by the then Labor government on 1 June 1988. Like many Labor initiatives it was a good idea but there was obviously a lot of finetuning to be done, and it still is being done. Before the CSA was established, fewer than 30 per cent of parents were paying or receiving child support. The cost of court access was prohibitive, court orders were at the time difficult and expensive to enforce and ultimately the taxpayer ended up footing the bill. A lot of children missed out on payments that they deserved.The child support scheme aims to ensure a number of things: that parents share the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity; that adequate support is available to all children not living with both parents; that Commonwealth involvement and expenditure is limited to the minimum necessary to ensure that the children's needs are met; that work incentives for both parents to participate in the labour force are not impaired; and that the overall arrangements are not intrusive on personal privacy but are simple, flexible and efficient.Let us look at some of the statistics regarding the establishment of the child support scheme. A lot of the results have been positive but there have been areas that have caused great concern to many parents, in particular non-custodial ones. I will come back to that theme later.There are nearly a million clients now that use the CSA, and 70 per cent of clients do pay regularly, although there is some debate about the accuracy of that figure. The average child support payment has gone from around $20 a week to around $50 a week, and $1 billion in child support was transferred between parents in 1996-97. Certainly there have been significant savings from the child support scheme to the taxpayer, currently about $320 million.Interestingly, 92 per cent of payers are men and around a third of the recipients have been repartnered. The number of payers who are living with new partners where children are present is estimated to be no more than 15 per cent. At 30 June last year, the CSA had over 439,000 active cases, with around 261,000 opting out of child support and 178,000 opting out for private collection arrangements. Private collection arrangements certainly need to be encouraged.In the electorate of Richmond there are over 3,500 payers and nearly 4,200 payees. There are more than 3,800 lone parents in the area that I represent, one of the highest levels in the country. Over half of the child support cases involve one child and a further third involve two children.It is important to look at the income levels of CSA clients. Over one-third of payers have a taxable income less than $10,000. It is true that in some cases income is minimised to avoid payment, but the bulk of these low income payers rely on welfare and have no child support liability. From 1 July they will be paying slightly more, which will be around $2.50 a week. Fifty-four per cent of payers have a taxable income of under $20,000, 87 per cent have a gross income under $40,000 and only one payee in 25 earns over $70,000. As might be expected, the income of payees is slightly lower. Seventy per cent of payees, normally the custodial parents, have income levels under $10,000; 85 per cent are on income levels under $20,000; 95 per cent are on income levels under $30,000 and 97 per cent under levels of $40,000.There was a lot of discussion, of course, about the child support formula which I will come back to later, but it is important that this house recognises the percentages. Depending on the number of children you have, it is 18 per cent for one child, 27 per cent for two, 32 per cent for three, 34 per cent for four and 36 per cent for five.Clearly, there have been a number of problems with the Child Support Agency. There are, obviously, difficulties because of the discrepancy in data and in the relationships with many other departments—for instance, Attorney-General's and, of course, the tax office. There are still serious problems when it comes to non-custodial parents and custodial parents alike. I will just briefly skim over the problems because I think that it is more important to come to some of the solutions that have been advocated in the current legislation and I would also like to foreshadow some amendments that will be coming in the House tomorrow.Of course, some of the problems have been the collection rates and enforcement, particularly with the issues of access and delays in payment. There is still an enormous amount of bureaucracy and, particularly when clients ring up the CSA, perhaps because of the enormous workload that the CSA has, perhaps the contact with many, say, non-custodial parents has not been as adequate as it should be. Of course, I have numerous cases, as do most backbenchers, of terrible situations of constituents, whether an ambulance driver in Ballina, or a family in Murwillumbah involving a teacher, or many cases in Lismore, but I would rather not go into those particular details. But there are some solutions and, of course, this is a long road that we must walk down. Some of the solutions are in this current bill and some will be coming tomorrow.The bill before us today aims to rectify some of the problems that previous governments considered too hard to tackle. I would like to highlight the main provisions of this bill and I would also like to foreshadow government amendments which will be brought down by the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles), tomorrow.In summary, the bill, firstly, increases paying parents' income by 10 per cent. For 1997-98, the income exempt amount will be $9,9O7 for single payers and $16,525, plus additional amounts for each child, for payers with natural or adopted children in their care. The bill includes an amount for a shared-care child in the exempt income amount and reduces the amount of the payee's disregarded income amount. It lowers the payee's disregarded income from $37,424 to $29,598 by using a figure known as the `all employees average total weekly earnings' rather than full-time adult weekly earnings. It needs to be pointed out that this reduction will be offset by halving of the rate at which the child support is reduced from the present dollar for dollar reduction in child support once you are over the income limit of 50c in the dollar.The bill removes automatic inclusion of child care in the payee's disregarded income. It allows higher child care costs to be grounds for departure from the assessment and reduces the effect of the payee's disregarded income. It introduces a minimum payment of $260 per year. Child support is to be payable for secondary students until the end of the year in which they turn 18. It includes rental property losses and foreign exempt income to be calculated in the child support. An uplift factor will apply to the base child support assessment on the most up-to-date income of parents only where the parent has not lodged the most recent tax return. It will also no longer backdate child support liability. There are other changes for second families, allowing the credit for child support paid in determining entitlements to family payment for payees' subsequent families.There are also a number of changes which I will quickly highlight in the area of administration. The bill will introduce a formal process to enable parents to object to CSA decisions. No longer will the names and birth dates of relevant dependant children be included on the assessment notice. It will allow parents to agree to collect and pay child support privately at any time, and will require parents to pay and collect child support privately where there is a good record of payment.There will be better alignment of Family Court and child support legislation relating to child care arrangements, allowing parents to end the child support assessment where their safety is at risk and providing support and assistance to parents to collect child support where safety is no longer of concern. The bill provides for an improved notification and disbursement process to reduce the incidence of overpayments, allows child support debts to be offset between parents, and allows estimates of income to be rejected where they do not reflect the actual income. And there are a number of other assessments.In the time I have remaining, I would like to reflect on some of the input and decisions that have been made by a task force that was convened less than six weeks ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—I was the chairman of that task force—to look specifically at areas where we could make improvements to what is obviously a very difficult area of social policy, where many families, particularly parents, face terrific trauma regarding the income levels that they either have to survive on or have to pay.The first of the areas we looked at—and there will be amendments moved by the parliamentary secretary tomorrow—was non-agency payments. As of 21 April, cabinet agreed to the arrangements for non-agency payments and child support liabilities to become more flexible up to a 25 per cent amount focused on a certain amount of expenditure. This will obviously provide far greater flexibilities and allow payers more choice in the form in which child support is paid by them, while protecting payees and meeting the needs of the children.Those particular items—and obviously there will be further finetuning done by the Child Support Agency—will, for example, be fees charged at a school or a pre-school at which a child is enrolled, essential medical and dental fees, the payment of a lot of utilities, whether it be rent, bond, corporate fees, rates or mortgages, and other costs involved with payment of motor vehicle costs et cetera. We believe this allows a lot more flexibility and a recognition that particularly non-custodial parents, if they wish to make certain payments to their children or, indeed, to the custodial parent which are not necessarily formalised by the CSA, will have that opportunity to do so up to 25 per cent.It is also important to note, because there has been a lot of concern regarding having access or paying, say, travel costs, that in current legislation you can apply to the CSA and get a departure order, as long as it is over five per cent of your costs, which then, if successful, can be used to offset or help reimburse travel costs, whether you are flying to your children or your children are coming to you. This is consistent with recommendation No. 67 of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues, tabled in November 1994.The next area where there was a lot of concern which came up in previous coalition government committees and also in the joint select committee recommendations was in relation to persons evading child support by travelling overseas. This proposal gives the Child Support Registrar the power to stop a parent who has persistently failed to meet his or her child support liabilities from leaving Australia. That is done through the issue of a departure prohibition order. This takes up recommendation No. 115 of the joint select committee. Indeed, it goes a bit further, but obviously it has to with those parents that have a demonstrated poor record of failing to meet their child support liabilities. This is only a very small group, but I believe it goes some way to remedying this situation.The third area has to do with transparency and the independent process to depart from the formula assessment. Currently, six per cent of the parents seek to depart from an assessment. Of this, 50 per cent are approved and, of course, the other 50 per cent are not. Therefore, three per cent of parents within the CSA believe they have an unsatisfactory arrangement because they do not have the mechanisms perhaps or they do not feel as though they are getting an adequate hearing to formulate a departure.The Child Support Task Force—and I must thank the members from all the different agencies that came before us—discovered that there was a real need to have a review within the Child Support Agency of the training, qualifications and remunerations of the review officers who determine the departure mechanisms and the administrative assessment.As such, a review will be conducted immediately and will report back to the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) by 30 June 1998. The review will look at those areas within the CSA that we can improve. For many non-custodial and custodial parents, it is not only the amount that they pay through the child support formula that they see as unfair but also the way they are being handled within the actual agency.The Child Support Agency will also be examining the processes to depart from the administrative assessment and developing a range of options that will be very transparent and accountable. Clearly, that time line has to be a bit longer.With regard to transparency and independent process, there is a suggestion by a government member to look at a more judicial process, for instance, going to the Family Court. Whilst it does have some merit, it is the view of the task force that we should look at reforming, or at attempting to reform, the Child Support Agency before we go down a more judicial process because there could be a potential for one agency to be played off against another notwithstanding the merits of that proposal.In the area of access, there is clearly a very contentious issue where non-custodial parents pay their child support arrangements and yet, when they come to pick up their children, access is denied because the children are not there either intentionally or accidentally. Nevertheless, the task force has recommended a number of measures to be looked at in pilot schemes—and these will start immediately—on how to better improve or enforce parental compliance to their obligations.A number of small pilot services will be provided across the country. Locations for these are not yet specific. When a contact order is made, they will provide immediate assistance for parents to resolve a conflict over contact as it arises and provide a compulsory program for parents convicted of breaching an order. These programs will be community based. We also hope to run some programs in a more judicial area, so we can compare apples with apples to see which system will work better in ensuring access is complied with because this causes enormous concern for many parents.In that particular area, a report is currently being compiled by the Attorney-General. It is an interim report on penalties enforcement, specifically in the area of enforcement of Family Court orders. This will come down in June. We believe it is important for this report to be tabled and we are waiting to find out what is in it. Pending its tabling, one of our recommendations is for a joint parliamentary committee to look into the area of access. That recommendation will have to be delayed until this report is finalised. Clearly, this is one of the major issues in relation to the child support arrangements and it causes an enormous amount of grief.In the area of the diverse forms of income received and taken into account for child support, the committee has made some other recommendations which will be given in more detail tomorrow. We believe that an interdepartmental committee needs to be established to look at the various sources of income available to payers and payees—such as salary sacrifice, corporate structures, second jobs and overtime. That interdepartmental committee will be instigated shortly and will report by the middle of the year.At the moment, we have discovered some difficulties with the process principally because we have to know about the tax reform package, which will come down in the not too distant future, following the very responsible budget that was delivered last night. We have to know what the landscape is not only in regard to the tax structure but also in regard to the social security structure before we can make some firm recommendations in that area. Nevertheless, progress is now being made and I hope there will be further advances.In conclusion, for all members of the government, and even of the opposition, one of the major duties associated with being a member of parliament is listening to some of the terrible cases that come before us, where families have broken up, where—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.21 a.m. to 10.31 a.m.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Finally, I would like to thank other members of the task force who gave up valuable time over the last six weeks to try to progress some of these difficult issues. In particular I thank the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), the member for Forde (Mrs Elson), the member for Deakin (Mr Barresi), the member for Murray (Mrs Stone), Senator Ferris, the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews) and the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek). Of course I would also like to thank staff of the Child Support Agency, the Department of Transport and Regional Development, the Department of Social Security and Attorney-General's Department who gave valuable input in a short period of time to the task force. (Time expired)10:31:003256Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—It would not be an overstatement to say that the Child Support Agency is about as popular with many of its clients as the Australian Taxation Office, of which it is a part. Yet despite its imperfections, there is little doubt that the CSA serves a valuable, if a somewhat unhappy, function.Sadly, broken marriages and relationships where children are involved are increasingly prevalent. Just as sad is that so many parents living apart cannot strike a reasonable financial deal between themselves for the benefit of their offspring. For this reason, the Child Support Agency was established and began its operations in June 1988. In 1996-97, the CSA dealt with nearly 450,000 child support cases. In that year, the amount transferred between custodial and non-custodial parents exceeded $990 million. With such large sums of money and, more importantly, the high number of parents and children involved, it is vital that the CSA performs its functions as fairly and as equitably as possible.Given the nature of its duty and the competing interests of divided parents, that has proven extremely difficult. I am pleased to have served on the task force under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) which has looked at the operations of the CSA. Unlike the previous government, which shelved its own parliamentary inquiry into child support, we are addressing some of the inequities in the system. This legislation as it stands today is the second stage of our response, coming hot on the heels of amendments that we introduced last year. That, of course, is not to say that the CSA will now be a perfect organisation, but given the work done within the scope of the task force's charter, it is now moving in the right direction.The third stage will be in the form of an amendment to be introduced when the debate resumes in the main chamber. As a task force member, and as the member for Richmond has already stated, those amendments and the announcements which will be made by the minister will be most welcomed indeed by custodial and non-custodial parents alike. It is a direct result of the contribution by members on the government side that these amendments have been introduced and it is to these announcements which I will direct most of my attention this morning. But it is also important to put on the record some of the changes which are in the current legislation.It is important to recognise that we are increasing the paying parent's exempt income by 10 per cent. We are including an amount for a shared-care child in an exempt income amount. We are reducing the amount of payee's disregarded income. We are removing the automatic inclusion of child care in the payee's disregarded income. We are allowing high child-care costs to be grounds for departure from the assessment. We are reducing the effect of the payee's disregarded income. We are introducing a minimum payment of $260 per year. Child support will now be payable for secondary students until the end of the school year in which they turn 18. These are only some of the changes which are taking place in the second stage of our reform of the CSA.They are welcomed by the parties concerned, but there is still more work to be done. The announcements which will be introduced in the main chamber are a direct result of the work of the task force and its members. The government's Child Support Agency task force was an initiative welcomed by many in this place and by very many more parents out there whose lives are affected by the CSA.There would not be an electorate office in the land without a long list of constituents who have complained about the operation of the agency. I have spoken to custodial parents who feel their former partner is cheating on income assessment to avoid paying child support. Some have charged that good jobs have been thrown in to escape the clutches of the CSA. There are those on the other side of the fence, the non-custodial parents, who feel they are being ruined by stringent CSA rules and being sucked dry, not for the benefit of a child or children that perhaps they are seldom allowed to see, but for the benefit of their former partner.Many non-custodial parents will contend that access orders should be tied to payment demands. That is a risky proposition because the heart of the matter should always be, first and foremost, the needs of the children. Care of a child and on-going responsibility for a child brought into this world should not be bartered away because of the inability of two mature adults to resolve their post-marital relationship.An important measure to address some of these issues which will be introduced in the main chamber is that of non-agency payments. Through this amendment, the non-custodial parent who makes payments on time and in full will be able to pay for approved items totalling up to 25 per cent of their assessment. While this is technically possible at present, it does require the consent of both parties. Under this legislation, non-custodial parents will feel they have the ability to contribute more visibly to their children's upbringing by paying for items such as child care, school fees, essential dental and medical fees and the like. But of course, as I mentioned before, there is a safeguard for the custodial parent. The payments must be met in full—100 per cent—and to a limit of 25 per cent.At the other end of the spectrum there are those who seek to avoid meeting their financial obligations. Going overseas has been a popular choice. A further announcement to be made is the introduction of a measure which will allow the Child Support Registrar to prevent those who have shown a consistent failure to make their payments from travelling abroad.One of the many issues that came to light during the task force's investigations was the questionable standard of the assessment review process itself. The average person in the street will perhaps believe that these assessments are considered and reviewed by senior officers of the CSA or those with some considerable expertise in adjudicating such matters. I think that would be a reasonable assumption. However, I believe further improvement is also possible in order to achieve a consistently high standard.The review process at present involves recent graduates of law schools making their judgments and being paid on a per case basis or, in manufacturing terminology, on a piece rate basis. While I am sure these review officers view their work with all seriousness, I believe the remuneration, selection and training of review officers is essential. I am pleased that a recommendation from the task force to embark on such a review has been accepted. It will be welcomed not only by the custodial and non-custodial parents but also, I am sure, by the CSA agency itself.Certainly one area that also causes some trouble in the assessment and review process is income, with the changing nature of the workplace and with changing methods of delivery of payment for services rendered. Couple that with a complicated taxation system that permits all sorts of deductions, and an individual trying to disguise his or her worth can often be underassessed. In an attempt to cure this ill, an interdepartmental committee will examine ways to consider the many diverse areas of income, so that individuals can be properly assessed for child support.The Child Support Agency exists to ensure that children brought into this world are cared for by their parents, even though they are estranged, separated or alienated from one another. In all our deliberations on the ways we seek to reform the CSA, we must bear in mind that the welfare of the child must come first always. We sincerely hope that our efforts are able to fix some of the anomalies in the system to make it fairer than it is now. I certainly welcome support from the members of the opposition to help us move in the right direction for the sake of those who have been affected by the tragedy of marital separation.We must also remember that the CSA only comes into play when the bond of cooperation between parents breaks down. Given the competing interests of—and, often times, the acrimonious relationship between—custodial and non-custodial parents, we cannot hope to change the CSA so that it meets the approval of all. There will be those out there who will disapprove or will believe that we have gone too far with these measures. There are those, of course, who believe that we have not gone far enough. But certainly it is the duty of governments and opposition members to strive to make the process more transparent, more effective and more responsive to needs and to make it a more equitable institution.10:41:003258Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—At the outset, I must thank my friend and colleague the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) for allowing me to take his place in the speakers list. I suppose that any consideration of child support legislation has got to focus on one issue, and that major issue is the welfare of the child or the children involved in the situation.I would support that legislation for the child support area is the single most distressing area of legislation that this or any other government has to deal with. It is a reality that, while in many cases the people who are involved in the dissolution of marriages manage it in a harmonious fashion, the possibility of, and the potential for, absolute distress is enormous. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you and all of my other colleagues have a constant flow of constituents coming through their offices and being dealt with by their capable staff, in most cases. You would find, as I do, that the stories one hears are incredibly sad.I would like at the outset, too, to compliment the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), for his job as chairman of the task force. I also thank the other members of the task force, because they too have done an excellent job.It is always the case that the Child Support Agency is the villain: it is sad but true that in reality there are very few people who see the Child Support Agency or its hardworking officers as anything but the villain. But I must make particular reference to a gentleman called Jason Vann, who serves my office and my constituents and is located in the Hurstville office of the Child Support Agency: I commend him for doing an absolutely excellent job.The people who are involved in this issue are ordinary human beings like the rest of us. They do not set out to create problems and have disasters, arguments and all sorts of passionate problems with their former spouses. It should be realised that, while there are organisations, such as Lone Fathers, or DADs—Dads Against Discrimination—for men, there is also a significant number of women who are non-custodial parents involved in the financial limbo that is created for so many of the payer parents.I must mention, too, that in my electorate I have a great deal of contact with a gentleman called John Clarke, who is the national secretary of DADs. I would like to commend him, personally, and his organisation for the balanced and moderate stance they take in trying to secure justice for all parents. That is the essential thing: it does need a balanced, rational and reasonable approach. One cannot allow the passion of things to carry one away; one has to deal with the facts.The Child Support Act, as it stands at the moment, has a number of shortcomings. The legislation amendments that we are considering right now and the task force recommendations address some of those, but there is still a long way to go.We should realise that the Child Support Act, as it stands, provides no incentive to payers to work harder. Tax and maintenance costs prevent that incentive being present. In some cases they encourage payers on marginal incomes to become unemployed, and that is very sad. It is very sad for our society, and it is very sad for that individual who feels so oppressed by the financial burden that they retreat from paid employment and become dependent on social security. It is not good for them; it is not good for Australia.One of the difficulties, of course, is that welfare recipients—genuine ones as well as those who retreat from employment—do not really have sufficient capacity to pay child support. There will be a small charge of $2.50 a week starting fairly soon, but those who are dependent on welfare do not have the resources to pay child support. In fact, I believe that the Child Support Act should allow payers to claim children from second families as dependants for Child Support Agency purposes in the same way as they can for social security purposes. To me, this is basic justice.The current bill before the committee will amend the basis of the administrative formula by increasing a parent's taxable income by adding back rental property losses and by including exempt foreign employment income. Unfortunately, this fails to recognise that the payer may have negatively geared the marital home they acquired pre-separation. In many cases the payer's children are taken away from the immediate geographic area by the payee and the payer rents out the matrimonial home and relocates to be close to the children, and of course that touches on a nerve that upsets so many people.I repeat that probably the majority of cases are conducted in a harmonious fashion, but you do get custodial parents who, because of the breakdown of the marriage, because of their absolutely vicious perception of their former spouse, will move away and try to remove the children from legal access to the other person. I would just like to make the point that, as far as the house is concerned, the marital home should be exempt as it would not have been bought as a negatively geared investment in the first place but as a principal place of residence.The existing legislation has a number of improvements, and they include the removal of retrospectivity in relation to the commencement of a liability. That is a major step forward. They also include enhancing the payment options for liable parents and providing flexibility in how information is provided. Another significant and important point is allowing the registrar to offset debts between parents.But when one is looking at legislation and talking about the various clauses, you have to remember that we are talking about a very human face. We are talking about people; men and women whose marriages, for whatever the reasons, have broken down and who are being torn apart. We have to realise, as a parliament, that the people who are in this situation can be in very dire financial straits indeed.I will give you details of the case of one of my constituents—an actual case. This women is the payer, the non-custodial parent, and she lives in a country location in my electorate. She is employed full time; she has two children, aged nine and 12; her relationship with her former husband is good and she has access to her children 30 to 50 per cent of the time, which is very substantial. She has a 13-year-old motor vehicle.Her gross wages are $728 a week. From that deduct taxation of $224 a week. Take away child support of $132.50, which is 27 per cent. She pays $135 in rent, which is, for country areas, fairly reasonable; you would pay much more in the city. For food she allocates $50 a week; for petrol, $10. Car registration for that 13-year-old car costs her $11.50. She has, as anybody in this situation does, things on the Mastercard, because when you have a very limited income you have to use that credit facility, and she is paying off $25 a week on that. Because of a number of circumstances she has got an outstanding solicitor's bill, and she is paying that off at $25 a week. Telephone and electricity cost her $12; clothing for herself costs about $10 a week. I fail to see how any adult male or female can clothe themselves adequately to go and do a job for $520 a year. The cost of having the children on access and of food, petrol, et cetera, in addition to the ordinary petrol, is $25. That gives her an expenditure of $660 a week and a balance of $68.Out of that $68 comes money for motor vehicle repairs, children's clothing, doctors bills, pharmacy, children's birthdays, Christmas and outings with the kids. She has no money for entertainment and no savings for a new car or for furniture or holidays, no emergency fund. Because her youngest child is nine years old, that woman is going to be in complete financial limbo without the opportunity of doing anything that most people would regard as normal—going for a holiday, having some entertainment—for the next nine years. She will be in that total financial limbo—like the man in the iron mask—for nine years.Another example—this is a notional scenario—is based on a man on the same wage but living in the city. This is a full-time employed, male payer with three children, aged two, four and seven. He has contact with the children 20 per cent of the time, which is pretty good. He has got a 10-year-old motor vehicle, in this imaginary case. The wage is still $728, and the tax is still $224. For three children he pays 32 per cent, $177. He pays rent of $175—I suspect this notional, imaginary person does not live in Sydney. Food costs $50; petrol, $20; car registration, $11.50; Mastercard, $25; telephone and electricity, $12; clothing for himself, $10. The total costs are $704.50. That leaves my imaginary city payer, with three children, with $23.50 a week for motor vehicle repair costs, children on contact, doctors bills, pharmacies and so on.We as members of this parliament have to realise and be completely aware of the great difficulties that people are being thrust into. I do not know how these people survive. I really do not. I have had contact with a great many of them, both custodial and non-custodial. In so many cases, they are living in absolute poverty because the custodial parent has only very limited income and the non-custodial parent is paying out the child support—and very often has another family at the same time, and they do pretty badly too. I do not know how they survive doing it.I want to praise again the task force which was led by the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). The amendment to be brought into the House tomorrow will be a distinct liberalisation of direct payment arrangements. It should be noted that, on 21 April this year, cabinet agreed to changes in arrangements for non-agency payments for child support liabilities in order to make these more flexible and allow payers more choice of the form in which child support is paid by them, while protecting payees and meeting the basic needs of the child. Remember, the care of the child is of paramount significance in all of this legislation.Those changes include the acceptance of certain expenditures of up to 25 per cent without the agreement of the payee, provided the balance of the liability has been paid. That is fair enough. Special circumstances will no longer be needed for non-agency payments to be credited, and there will be acceptance of non-cash payments.The child support task force, ably chaired by the member for Richmond, considered which payments should be allowed to be credited towards a payer's child support liability up to that limit of 25 per cent without requiring the payee's agreement. The following agreed items will be included in the child support regulations: fees charged at the school or pre-school at which the child is enrolled; essential medical and dental fees; payee rent, including bond and body corporate charges; payee rates; payee mortgage; payee utilities; child- care costs; and motor vehicle costs, including registration, insurance, service, tyres, repairs and panel beating. That is a major step forward. I will be amazed if it does not have the full support of the opposition. It certainly has the full support of all government members.I want to conclude by repeating that the only important factor in all of this is the welfare of the children concerned. That does not mean to say that I do not have sympathy and understanding for the welfare of the payers and the payees. As I have already said, so many of them in both areas end up living in absolute poverty. Anything that can be done to make it fairer, to have a more just and equitable distribution of the available income between both sides, is something that we should all support. I certainly support the bill before the House.10:56:003261Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I welcome the opportunity to wind up this debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. I am a bit of a radical on child support, and I do not say this with any criticism of either the current or the previous governments. I just do not think that we have gone far enough in addressing this problem. I think that we are developing a camel and that the Child Support Agency and its mechanisms have not fully encompassed the gravity or the size of the task we have in hand. When you consider that one marriage in every three now ends up in divorce, you are confronted by the conclusion that whatever we put in place has to be streamlined, fair, accessible, and above all, affordable.I see a lot of abuse in my electorate. In fact, we say in our office—I have not tested this for a while—that we spend nearly 50 per cent of our time on matters related to the breakdown of families, be that in relation to divorce, property settlement, separation, access, pensions, the Child Support Agency, family allowance, and the like. If that is the case in the office of a provincial member of parliament—I imagine the case would be somewhat similar in capital city offices—and you multiply that by 148, you get some measure of the enormity of the task. We see it only at the margins or at the fringes. A lot of the problems are already being solved by the agency.There are about 12 major measures in this bill and I think that some of them are very sensible. I think that the marginal increase in exempt income for payers of child support from $9,000 to $9,900 should have gone further. There is a good case there for having to go to 20 per cent, but I appreciate that there are limitations on what the government can do in any given year. I think $18 million is not a bad effort.Changes to the amount of carer's income is to be disregarded. It has come down from $37,000 to $29,000 in round figures. That, too, is a fair assessment because, instead of being based on the average weekly earnings of someone in full-time employment, it is now being based on the average weekly earning of all employees. That takes into account that a lot of people with part-time work, permanent part-time work and even casual work are paying child support and, therefore, I think that is a fairer assessment. It possibly mirrors the sort of income that a custodial parent might be earning.The introduction of a minimum income of $250 in calculating the amount of child support payable I think is a good rule. There are some people who are a bit manipulative. I have had people who have come in to me and said, `I am going to go on the dole, or I am going to go on the pension—I am not going to support my kids any more. I have had enough of this.' I am not saying that, at times, their circumstances do not call for reassessment. But I think the attitude that you can just throw yourself on the dole or the pension and not only be cared for yourself by the state but expect that you are exempt from all responsibility for your children as well is stretching it a bit far.The token payment of $5 a week is an acknowledgment that there is a financial responsibility in bringing children into the world, no matter what your circumstances are. Whether you are the richest person in the land or you are on a basic pension or dole payment, everyone has the responsibility to look after kids.Allowing payers and payees greater flexibility in reaching arrangements relating to child-care payments—that, too, is a very sensible measure. Addressing the situation where child-care arrangements have changed from that specified in various orders—again, a very sensible measure. Allowing child support to continue to the end of the school year where a relevant child turns 18 in that year—no one would expect that a custodial parent who was putting a child through their secondary education, and that date was perhaps in July or August of that year, should be deprived of child support. The reason for that is that I am sure even the non-custodial parent would acknowledge that there would be no point in both parties depriving the child of getting through to grade 12 and having the best possible opportunity.There are also things such as the introduction of a review mechanism enabling the registrar to initiate a departure from an administrative assessment of child support where the registrar has information pointing to a review process rather than just the word of one parent. There is the inclusion of exempt foreign income and rental property losses in calculating income. I think we have all seen—in fact, I have one classic case in my electorate—that there are potential payers that have anything up to six or seven rental properties and have become very adept in using those properties to avoid paying their just entitlement.There is a provision allowing determinations to be based on more recent years of income instead of having your income assessed at two years ago—and things can change dramatically in two years. It is basically the last full assessment. It also means that the payments can be altered automatically and in a more meaningful fashion.The one that I particularly like is allowing 50 per cent of child-care expenditure to be excluded from the person's income for the purpose of family allowance. That has been long awaited. It also allows the non-custodial parent, in a case where that non-custodial parent has taken on a new family, to receive a more fulsome and reasonable assessment.Returning to the case that I was talking about, it involved a young lady in my electorate who separated from her husband in Brisbane. I live in Bundaberg. It is not a great distance from Brisbane—about a four-hour car journey or fifty-minute plane journey. This triggered a series of court actions of various sorts for the custody of the child and for the requirement for her to live in Brisbane for her former husband's convenience. His was a case where his income was very deftly concealed in a series of family companies and discretionary trusts. Documents that were obtained in a previous court action attested to the fact that he could spend anything up to $300 per week in restaurants and $150 per week at liquor barns. Against that background and noting the fact that he drove the very best of cars and lived in the very best style of living, he was paying initially about $360 per month. It went up to about $440. Certainly it was in no way a reflection of his true income.The thing that I found most galling in that particular case was the non-custodial parent, because of his financial capacity to force her into court periodically, aiming to nearly break her. This was going on for two, three or four months; there would be an application for some variation of order or custody. That virtually bled the custodial parent dry. I only have this second hand, but the non-custodial parent had said to her, `I will bleed you dry; I will bankrupt you.' I felt that was an oppressive use of the law and a circumstance in which the Child Support Agency and the whole Family Law Act did not respond appropriately and adequately in terms of equity and real justice.For that reason, I have a great deal of support for one of the government members who is proposing a private member's bill or some amendments—I am quite sure how he intends to handle this. He proposes the setting up of a child support small claims tribunal, placing between the Family Court and the current administrative process a very simple mechanism where the parties could appear before a magistrate at a fairly low cost and, in most instances, without the requirement of lawyers and experts so that minor orders could be adjusted and justice and equity obtained without any great cost to either party.I see many instances where one or other party has a very just case but they cannot get access to the Family Court. I do not want you to think I am prejudiced either one way or the other in these matters. I have another case in my electorate where a very manipulative former wife, the custodial parent, finds all methods of preventing her former spouse from seeing the children: she goes away at weekends; she says the children have got colds; and she does not dress the children appropriately, forcing the father to buy new clothes when the children visit him. When the children go back to the mother, she does not wash their clothes, so that the clothes go back to the father a month later in the same condition that they were in when the father had returned the children. Because of that sort of really vicious use of the children as a weapon against the father, I found that particular case really galling.On one occasion the children came back from their mother with quite severe bruising. I actually saw those bruises on the children in my own office, and I have seen a videotape of bruising that occurred on other occasions. Their father became very concerned and my recommendation to him was that he take the matter to the state family services department for an assessment. The recommendation of the department was that he not return the children until a bit more investigation could be carried out.The thing that surprised me was that within four days of that happening the custodial parent had got support and a court action demanding the children's return, despite the fact that on every occasion when she had breached orders the father could not get legal aid. There is an inequity there. I must add that it applies in both instances—sometimes it is the male and sometimes it is female who is the offending party. I am not saying that I have any particular preference.This idea of a child support small claims tribunal has some merit. It would enable either party to apply for a variation of an assessment. A magistrate would deal with the case based on capacity to pay balanced against the needs of the child. A magistrate could even vary the percentage arrangements. Such a tribunal could be a very good thing, a very inexpensive thing, and it would deliver equity and justice in a simple manner. These magistrates could be experts in family law, be located in the capital cities and the major provincial cities, and perhaps go on a circuit to country areas. They could also back up the local resident magistrates who could also hear these cases if there was no other magistrate available.What the bill also proposes is that in the case of avoidance the Child Support Agency would be able to make an application to the tribunal to have the potential payer examined. It could subpoena documents, place people on oath, and any failure to attend could bring about an action for contempt. This might bring some of those people who hide their assets in family companies and in discretionary trusts and the like to heel very quickly without the agency going into monumental action in other courts, a very expensive action costing anything from $10,000 to $20,000.Once an order was made in a magistrate's special child support small claims tribunal, deliberate or wilful failure to pay could involve an action for contempt and a penalty. A lot of the people on both sides of the fence who offend now get away with it, and that is regrettable.The fourth matter that I find quite appealing is in the area of deliberate frustration of access. In such a situation a magistrate would have the power to take that into account in varying the quantum of the assessment. I do not agree with the social engineers who say that you can put access to a child and the upkeep of a child in two separate categories. The non-custodial parent has a right to participate, albeit at arm's length, in the nurturing and in the upkeep of their child. That parent should have some rights, and access is one of those rights.I very much applaud the work of the task force chaired by the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). I commend him and the member for Deakin (Mr Barresi) for their addresses this morning. In their recommendations to the government, which I hope will be taken into legislation shortly, they are proposing that expenses that are paid by the non-custodial parent such as school fees, medical and dental costs, mortgage and rental costs, and motor and vehicle costs, to a limit of 25 per cent, will be able to be deducted from child support payments.In a way, that will give the non-custodial parent some discipline and some say in the nurturing of the child. I think that, where the custodial parent will not play ball, is deliberately obstructive, and wilfully frustrates access to the child, that should be linked to the assessment. One very simple rule could apply automatically if the custodial parent deliberately frustrates the non-custodial parent. I have seen lots of cases where they have said, `The child has got a cold' or `You can have them for the weekend but you will have to pay for the airfares' or `You will have to come and collect them', something like that, knowing full well that the non-custodial parent cannot do that.In those instances where the children do not go to the non-custodial parent for the court appointed time the rule should be that the quantum—one-fifty second—for each week deprived should be deducted from the child support payment going to the custodial parent. That would be a good discipline. It would say, `If you are not sending the kids, you are not going to get paid.' I think those two things should be linked. I support the legislation. I support the task force that is currently doing more work on the matter and I hope things will go further.Motion (by Mr Sercombe) agreed to:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House. Bills3265r5113265Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Ronaldson:That the bill be now read a second time.11:17:003265Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition supports this legislation. It is in fact the one area of transport policy where there is bipartisan agreement between the opposition and the government. It would probably be the only time in my life that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and I are speaking in the same debate and agreeing with each other. It is very good to see.The legislation extends the life of the National Road Transport Commission for a further five years. It has already been extended by one year beyond the five-year initial time span that was established when it was created by the Hawke government back in 1991. We are of the view that the NRTC should be made permanent. It is an excellent organisation. It has done tremendous work and has enjoyed the support of both sides of the House. The current government has not really altered its charter or its operations and I would commend the government for that. Having said that, we believe the NRTC should be made permanent. We are happy to see it further extended for five years and we do not wish to quibble with the decision that has been made.The legislation enacts a variety of changes to the NRTC including altering its internal structure requiring it to present an annual strategic plan, which is a proposition that we support, making provision for the inclusion of New Zealand in the uniform road regulation development and allowing for the exemption of the defence forces from road regulations in certain circumstances relating to the weight of vehicles and the like.In very brief summary, the opposition's position is that we support the legislation and commend the NRTC for its work to date. In particular, the NRTC has managed to get all of the various states to reach agreement on such a complex and difficult area as road regulation and to achieve, effectively, uniform road regulation, with some modifications to take account of the fact that there are considerable differences across the various states with respect to the circumstances in which road transport operators function.For example, the types of regulation that are required in the outback of Western Australia or the Northern Territory are obviously quite different from the regulation that you may require with respect to the Hume Highway because the situations faced by operators are very different. That has been able to be incorporated within the uniform structure in a way that gives everybody some degree of leeway without derogating from the basic principle that you now face uniform regulatory structures right across the country, rather than six or eight different regimes with very different rules.The one additional comment that I would make is that it was suggested at the Australian Transport Council meeting—the meeting of ministers that occurred on 24 April—that the NRTC structure should be extended to encompass all land transports, in other words to encompass the rail industry as well. The ministerial council made a decision to examine this and to launch some sort of investigation into the proposition and, again, the opposition would support this idea being very thoroughly examined.The gradual introduction of private operators into the rail industry means that there is a very major change going on in the circumstances which govern the operations of the rail industry and, of course, the member for Hinkler, Mr Neville, is present today. Our House committee is currently looking at that very question of the changes in the rail industry and the impact that that is having on a range of matters associated with that industry.Certainly I think it would be wise to consider the possibility of extending the NRTC's operations to include rail as well as road. We do have many similar issues there. We have numerous state systems. We have a variety of differences between those systems on things like safety regulation and the like, including a most enjoyable one: the committee was entertained by the different safety jackets that people have to wear in different states. There are various other issues of a similar nature.There certainly is scope for the same sorts of principles to be applied in the rail industry and you do have a very different regulatory environment now with the introduction of private operators. In the past, when you had a single monopoly public sector operator, that operator was its own regulator and, as it was a public sector body, that was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate situation.With the proliferation of private operators, that is no longer the case. You now need an independent regulatory regime which applies equally to everybody, public or private, and you need issues such as uniform access to be dealt with. All of these things are in the process of being negotiated. I think you need an independent safety investigatory body equivalent to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, or BASI as it is popularly known, to investigate accidents and to report and to advise on potential safety improvements.There are a lot of issues there that perhaps were not there several years ago that suggest that it is certainly a good idea to examine very closely the proposition that the NRTC could be extended to the rail industry. It would also be useful as a means of integrating our policy approach to road and rail. One of the great difficulties that Australia has had in land transport policy for decades is the constant tension between road and rail and the competition between them for the favours of government, when in fact really what we need is a comprehensive, integrated approach which takes account of the strengths of both modes and which ensures that the intermodal connections between the two modes are maximised in efficiency. That is increasingly becoming important in transport. Multimodal transport is very much becoming a dominant part of the overall transport scene. I feel we need to move beyond the basic competition or contest between road and rail. There will always be issues of choice between the two modes; there will always be issues of conflict as to how they ought to be funded and what sort of priorities ought to be given. But the overriding imperative, surely, has to be the broad efficiency of the total transport system and, therefore, extending the NRTC's ambit to cover rail as well as road I think would be a very positive step.Naturally, there are a number of issues that need to be considered in this and there may be some difficulties that have to be addressed. But certainly at first blush from the opposition's point of view, this is a worthwhile proposition and I commend the various ministers for agreeing to investigate it.The final observation I would make in that context is that we are disappointed in last night's budget. The government has again cut the national highway funding, which is an issue of some significance to road regulation and road safety, and is what the NRTC's charter involves. National highway funding was $834 million in our last budget in 1995. In the 1997 budget it went down to $697 million and in last night's budget it has gone down again to $675 million. The bulk of the cuts are being borne by maintenance. That means that we have a serious problem building up in the system which will gradually hit in a few years time.Even though the roads of national importance category has been introduced, and that partly covers the reduction, there are two points that need to be made in response to that. Firstly, it only partly covers the reduction and so the total spending on roads has still gone down. Secondly, what has occurred has been a shift away from the nation's most fundamentally important roads—the key roads—which constitute the national highway to a variety of other roads, some of which are almost as important. The Pacific Highway is an obvious example. Obviously, the difference in importance between the Pacific Highway and many parts of the national highway is limited.On the other hand, increasingly there are other roads which are receiving roads of national importance funding, such as the main road 92 in the electorate of Gilmore in New South Wales, which are of far lesser importance in relative terms to the overall national transport picture than the national highway. I think the effective shift of resources out of the national highway into roads like that is a very retrograde step for the road transport industry and the overall interests of the Australian transport system.I commend the bill and look forward to continuing constructive debate and discussion in this area. I am pleased to see that the government broadly has maintained the bipartisan position that was adopted by the former government and the state premiers in this area. It has already produced good things for the industry and Australia. I look forward to that continuing.11:27:003267Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—This is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. There are a number of matters that the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) has already addressed relating to the detailed achievements. I wish to commence with some historic reference as to why it is so necessary and why this bill, which continues the existence of the National Road Transport Commission, is justified.The member for Melbourne makes the interesting point that bipartisanship can produce good legislation. I have been telling this parliament for a couple of years now that that is how we should have dealt with the tax situation. I am of the view that, when politics intrudes on economics, you always get a half-baked outcome because politics will always ensure that the best possible solution is just simply not available. Yet we well know that that is not going to be the case. It is a pity because we seem to be able to agree on lesser matters when an issue as important as tax—which I say is far too important for an election anyway—cannot be resolved in a similar manner.Putting that aside, the historic basis for the NRTC was really the fact that we were one nation, we had a constitution guaranteeing free trade between the states, and yet we had non-tariff barriers regarding the means by which that freight and that trade could be transported from place to place. The non-tariff barriers, which were always promoted as safety regulations relative to the operation of larger vehicles, were really just put there to protect highly inefficient state rail systems.We promoted the argument that anything larger than a single-axle truck was somehow unsafe on the roads. In fact, the larger the individual rig, the fewer trucks we have on the road and the less weight per tonne of goods carted on the road. If we require a single prime mover to carry, say, 20 tonnes of freight, we have to take account of the damage that single prime mover does. It probably weighs eight or nine tonnes in its own right. Once we put one, two or three additional trailers behind a single prime mover, we have a much more efficient ratio of gross weight per tonne of freight. That is eminently sensible.Those of us who have lived with it for longer than most—and I certainly have, as a resident of the north-west of WA—will know that right back in the 1960s we started to license road trains, and on some pretty inadequate roads, I might add. We all soon learnt that they did not represent any more hazard to us than smaller vehicles did, and the fact that we did not have to pass so many of them was an advantage. It is an interesting aspect because, as the NRTC has managed to bring in uniform laws in regard to vehicle configurations, the incidence of large vehicles on even metropolitan roads has, of course, increased greatly—particularly in my state, where we now see road trains operating on major metropolitan highways. It was a great controversy because it was the great unknown.Being directly experienced in the trucking industry, I knew very well the cost of breaking up a road train on the periphery of a city. The cost of shifting it the last 10 or 20 kilometres often represented one-third of the value of the entire freight revenue for a journey of possibly 1,000 or 1,500 kilometres for that trailer. That was plainly silly when, in fact, there was no reason for it.In Western Australia, when it was announced that a trial was to be conducted to ensure that these larger configurations could operate within the metropolitan area, there was the usual outcry. But the real humour of it arose when a trial of 500 truck movements was authorised and completed without incident. I happened to have my radio on when the minister was being interviewed because that day he had announced that, owing to the success of the trial, they would allow these large configuration vehicles to move into the metropolitan areas. One of the opponents rang up: a woman, in high dudgeon because she lived in the area affected, who said that it was impossible to allow this happen because her committee had been unable to observe one of the 500 truck movements. The reason was, of course, that the committee had not even noticed them. They were so inconsequential on the road that they had not even been noticed. Of course, today we have those sorts of arrangements.But they also have to consider the extreme importance of road transport in the context of Australia. We have extremely large distances and a relatively low population density, particularly in our major resource areas, which always appear to be out in our remote areas. The simple fact is that, unless you have very substantial tonnages of freight, rail is not an economic proposition. This, of course, is also controversial because, in my electorate, we produce probably 10 million or 15 million tonnes of grain, most of which is shifted by rail.When one looks at all the receiving points associated with that process, we suddenly find that it is not traffic that is really suitable, even at that tonnage, for trains. It is suitable if you can aggregate the loads from the outlying areas; but, when you try and send a train hither and thither to pick up what might be 10,000 or 20,000 tonnes of grain from a single point, it is not economic. Whilst the figures have changed somewhat, probably upwards, we calculated some years ago that the rail system in my electorate was handling about 1,400 tonnes of freight per kilometre of track. That might be as high as 2,000 tonnes today. But that 2,000 tonnes has to be compared with the figure for the iron ore province in Western Australia, where the rate is closer to 90,000 tonnes per kilometre of track.They are the sorts of tasks that are adequate for a rail system. It is interesting that, in fact, a new developer for a new mine, the Hancock company, are arguing with the competition council that they should have access to the existing private rail infrastructure for its mining effort rather than going for a new railway. Of course, they are right. It proves that there is still excess capacity within the existing infrastructure, and quite clearly it should be used and they should pay a fee for its use, which raises another issue.The member for Melbourne asked when the NRTC would be looking at the rail system. To tell the truth, I do not see any problem with that. We must, in the future, look at our rail system as a road and at the rail vehicle as more like a truck. In other words, people should have access to that road just as the Hancock mining company wants to, and they should be able to put their own equipment upon it and do their own work. That gives maximisation of the capital investment.We have really seen the system—as agreed by the National Road Transport Commission—achieving a uniformity of vehicle configurations and of licensing and things of that nature which have made it much more practical and sensible to operate the road system in the interest of all Australians. The extension of its term of office which is provided for in this legislation is therefore desirable. We naturally welcome the support that has been given by the opposition. It was plainly silly to realise that when you got to the border of a state the legal vehicle you drove on one side of the border was illegal on the other.I have to congratulate the NRTC for not taking, as I feared originally, the lowest common denominator, for instance the very stultified views of the Victorian government at the time as to what was the largest vehicle that could be on the road. That government has changed its mind now and we see more sensible arrangements. As the member for Melbourne pointed out, in setting these vehicle configurations the NRTC has allowed sufficient flexibility for particular areas of particular states, but on the national highway system now we have quite adequate arrangements.Trucking, as I say, has a very significant role to play for smaller loads. Nevertheless, to come back to rail—I have to be careful in this—I heard the Chief Minister of the ACT telling me on the radio this morning that my government is offering some attractive tax arrangements for the very fast train project. I hope that she has told me the truth. I have yet to see it in writing. I would be very supportive of that, and very supportive of a very fast train system, particularly between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, and the sooner the better. It does have a freight role, in being able to handle some of the smaller and lighter freight requirements, overnight type freight, that presently is serviced by the trucking industry.I hope that the governments involved—presently, the New South Wales and the ACT governments, with some involvement of the federal government—do not take us into the Ice Age of rail transport by going for things like tilt trains and/or any wheeled variety. We would be very silly to accept that technology, considering that those who know best are now moving to maglev technology, both in Japan and Germany, and gaining speed for nothing. The speed limitations of wheeled traffic and the fact that the locomotive has to be increased in weight for every extra kilometre are part of yesterday's technology. Those of us that have had the opportunity to go and ride in a Maglev train know that the power is not in the vehicle; the power is in the track. Consequently you can achieve much greater speeds and attack much greater grades.You can also put road and rail, if you like, through private property without inconveniencing the owner to any great degree, because you literally elevate it to an appropriate height so that tractors or livestock can go underneath. So that is going to give us the possibility, in my view, of also looking at the third arm of major transport, which is air traffic, and amalgamating a high speed train in the south-east corner of Australia with the three airports of Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney. That would then ensure that we did not need that second airport in the Sydney basin which, of course, people think is a good idea provided it is not in their backyard.The reality is that we could, I think, achieve that in a way that would add greatly. I hear proposals that that train service could start in Parramatta and go through to Wollongong before heading down to Canberra and that makes a lot of sense to me. You would have a metropolitan service from Parramatta, which is probably an hour or an hour and a half away from Sydney Cove by road, in 10 minutes. They are the opportunities we have if we go to the best and do not take on second-class or yesterday's options. They are all good reasons for having a body that would really try to coordinate those issues and, more particularly, the road issue.Some aspects of that are worthy of mention. By the way, I was quite impressed to see that this legislation carries the signature of each state premier and of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). In other words, it is a national agreement on an issue where the states have the priority.The fact that we are bringing New Zealand into our vehicle standards arrangements is eminently sensible and, of course, the day that there can be some international agreement of that nature will make it even better. I am still astounded to think that in so many ways, be it with chemicals or vehicle standards, the testing process is done on a nation by nation basis and, quite frequently, we still do not have the confidence in other countries to produce vehicles, or chemicals, or other things, to a standard that is acceptable throughout the world. Quite clearly, if a car will kill you in one country, it is going to kill you in another. Equally, we should be looking for a reasonable standard on an international basis—but at least we are expanding that beyond our own borders. Firstly we have achieved it now on a national basis and by this legislation we are extending those arrangements to New Zealand. That is an excellent attitude.I come back in closing to the issue raised by the member for Melbourne about national road systems and government expenditure. I would strongly support more expenditure on roads, and I come back to my argument that some times the road is more efficient than rail, depending on the freight burden. In my electorate I would like to see government funding of a federal nature provided to allow for road upgrades as the replacement for rail. In other words, I would like to see an adequate road that allows for the traffic of large vehicles without the danger to the smaller traffic on the roads—the school buses and, of course, people in their individual motor cars. If, during tax reform—and I express this view personally—we could have a hypothecated road user charge included in the taxing arrangements of fuel, that would be an excellent proposition and it might be a solution to that particular arrangement. I would much prefer a hypothecated road user charge and a GST than the present excise arrangement which I find quite remarkable. Because of the nature of our country, we are heavily dependent on transport, and it is a very silly proposition that government should see it as a major source of revenue outside of the road maintenance and construction arrangements.And there is another interesting point there in terms of large vehicle transport, and that is the difference between a licence fee and a tax on fuel—and that was partly addressed by the NRTC. The public tends to say that users should pay and that there should be a tax on the fuel. That is fine in the heavy vehicle sector and where there is a road maintenance requirement, but when one gets into the cities roads are not built to accommodate trucks. We build them to accommodate cars, and the level of the infrastructure required is directly proportional to the number of vehicles that are licensed.You get these people who say, `But I only drive an hour a day. Why should I have to pay a higher licence fee?' In Western Australia, where licence fees have been relatively low, the government has, quite properly, suddenly decided to raise licence fees for road infrastructure, particularly in the metropolitan area. That is true—those people only drive an hour a day, and they all want to drive in the same hour to get to work and get home again. The demand they put on road infrastructure is relative to that. For the rest of the day many of those roads are grossly underutilised, but they do not want to be in a traffic jam at those peak periods so they demand that government build to that. A licence charge is the appropriate means of funding that need.But, furthermore, for those who say, `Well you should all be on public transport,' that puts pressure on people who do have an underutilised vehicle to decide whether they should keep it or whether they should sell it, avoid the higher licence fees and use the public transport. That becomes a choice because they are being asked to put their money where their mouth is. I consequently believe that it is a very sensible thing as part of the road funding requirements to have licence fees at a level that reflects the demand that each individual vehicle puts on the road system. It never wears it out, but it constantly demands increased road services and infrastructure. That is just another important thing that we have to take account of in the future.I have used up my time. I do support this legislation. I congratulate the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), who is present, for extending the period of this necessary cooperative operation between the Commonwealth and the states, and now New Zealand in some respects. I think we will see greater and greater improvements, particularly under his stewardship, because he is a man who clearly understands what is happening in road transport. Thank you.11:46:003271Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I will be brief in my contribution today on the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 . I want to focus on one aspect of the bill which has received only minor comment and that is to do with the Australian Defence Force and the provisions for movement of defence assets. The bill makes provision for movement of ADF equipment and personnel to be exempt from a range of provisions that would otherwise apply. Of course, that is a commonsense requirement because of the need for Defence to move assets around the country in times of difficulty.There are, though, some questions that have been posed to me that I would pose to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) in the hope that he may be able to clarify a couple of matters. The definition of what is defence related in the act is particularly broad. There are seven clauses there, in paragraph 41B(6). Most of those are straightforward, as you would expect. They say, for example: the defence of Australia; the security of Australia; the operation of the Australian Defence Force in connection with the defence of Australia; the operation of the Australian Defence Force in connection with a peacekeeping or other activity.There are, however, two subparagraphs which I would appreciate some clarification of by the government. Subparagraph (6)(e) refers to the management of an emergency or disaster, then it says:(whether natural or otherwise), where that management involves the Australian Defence Force;Questions have been raised about what constitutes an emergency or a disaster other than a natural disaster; and what is the circumstance in which it is anticipated it would be necessary for defence assets to be moved in those circumstances of a disaster or emergency that is not one defined as a natural one?The second query relates to subparagraph (g) which says:the operation of the Australian Defence Force in connection with the protection of a State or Territory from domestic violence, where the State or Territory has applied for that protection.It is not normal practice for Australian defence forces to become involved in domestic violence circumstances. Whilst this act of itself will not accord that opportunity—it would simply relate to the movement of assets and traffic regulations—it does nonetheless present a question in the minds of some, I think fairly so, as to what are the domestic circumstances in which the government believes it would be necessary to relocate substantial defence assets. That is what we are talking about in relation to this bill because we are talking about vehicles which, either by their size, their weight, their number or their design, would not conform to the standard state and Commonwealth laws for use on the roads.What domestic circumstance, does the government believe, requires that provision in the act? We are talking here about a state or territory with a domestic threat not an external threat. It does not involve the defence of Australia. It is a domestic concern within a state—for example, when a state asks for APCs, leopard tanks or a large convoy of assets to be moved to their state. What is the circumstance the government has in mind that warrants those provisions?I could not readily answer the question when posed it. I am pleased the minister is in the Main Committee and I look forward to hearing from him as to why there is a need for that in the legislation, so the House can finally adopt it with a clear understanding of the application of these laws. In fairness and to put it in its complete context, given the recent events on Australia's docks, for example, would it be envisaged that a circumstance at Webb Dock might be a domestic incident in which the provisions of this bill would be seen to apply? They are the sorts of questions on the minds of some and I look forward to the government's answer to clear that up.11:51:003272Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—Firstly, I thank all the speakers who have contributed to the debate on this National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 . In particular, I acknowledge the support from the opposition in terms of the initiatives that will flow from the passing of this piece of legislation.The key initiative that flows from this bill, as outlined in the second reading speech, is the extension of the NRTC for another five years. This has been awaited and it has taken time to get to this stage during the process of this legislation. We needed to extend the life of the NRTC under this act for a further five years.From that point, we need to consult with the state ministers to appoint two further commissioners to the NRTC. Three of the commissioners, Stuart Hicks, John Stanley and Caroline Ameduri, were in attendance at the last ATC meeting where we covered a lot of issues that are being dealt with by the NRTC—a lot of the reforms and improvements that have been made in the reform process, particularly with heavy vehicles. It should be noted that there is still a fair bit to be achieved as far as heavy vehicle reform is concerned.That is one of the core elements. The other is that this bill makes provision for the Australian Transport Council to replace the former ministerial council for road transport. It allows for regular review by the ATC of the National Road Transport Commission Act and the Commonwealth road transport reform legislation.As I said, it also makes provision for the appointment of five commissioners, which the Australian Transport Council will be doing. It allows the ministerial council to appoint the chief executive of the National Road Transport Council. Importantly—and I acknowledge the remarks by most speakers—it allows for the involvement of New Zealand in deciding trans-Tasman road vehicle standards under the trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement. It is very important that, in all areas of operation of government, we extend that openness across the Tasman to New Zealand. The New Zealand transport minister actually attends ATC, as a member.As the previous speaker identified, it also makes provision to recognise the unique transport operational requirements of the defence forces. I have had a quick look at the clauses that the shadow minister for defence, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis), has identified.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.54 a.m. to 12.06 p.m.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Just before we were interrupted to go to the division, I was addressing a couple of comments that were raised by the member for Brisbane with regard to that part of the changes to the act for the provision to recognise unique transport operational requirements of the defence forces—a couple of elements in section 41B(6)(e), I think it is, of the act in regard to the management of an emergency or disaster whether natural or otherwise. I think that is probably fairly self-explanatory. If it is a natural disaster, we often have those in Australia and the defence forces are often asked to assist. A disaster otherwise could be a major explosion in a building or something like that where there needs to be extra assistance with emergency services from the defence forces. Obviously, they are declared by the states.I take the point that the member for Brisbane raised with regard to subparagraph (g), the operation of the Australian Defence Force in connection with the protection of state or territory from domestic violence, where the state or territory has applied for that protection. Evidently there is a section 119 of the constitution which provides that:The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.This requires the Commonwealth to take specified action at the request of a jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, the Commonwealth could determine that a grant of aid to the civil power might be an appropriate response to, for example, a terrorist act or something like that within a particular state. The services might need to move equipment in as a response to that request.I think it is probably a circumstance that would be fairly rare to arise, I would grant you that. It reflects those elements of the constitution and other acts; that is why that is in this particular act. I would imagine the member for Brisbane is drawing a comparison, albeit a long one, to whether this could allow Defence Force activities in circumstances such as those that we have experienced recently on the wharves. The member for Brisbane would also note that our government did not even contemplate using the defence forces in terms of the strike action that was on the wharves, although Australia governments in the past have. That is what that is specifically directed at. In terms of recent actions on the waterfront, I will repeat that our government never considered at any time using the defence forces.This is an important piece of legislation. It has the support of both sides of the House and it will go well towards extending the life of the NRTC for another five years, allowing the ATC to get on and appoint two more commissioners to complete the complement of commissioners on the NRTC and get on and complete that road reform process. I do not think there is any argument at all in Australia about some of the achievements that have been gained by this nation from the work of the NRTC. It is currently undertaking some very important work for the government in terms of the possibilities of increasing mass limits across Australia, opening up critical corridors of roadways for increased mass limits, from 42½ tonnes to 45 tonnes, which has a massive economic benefit to the entire nation, but particularly to regional Australia. That is the work that the NRTC is undertaking at the moment. We would like to see that continue. This will enable that to continue to happen and I commend the bill to the House.12:10:003274Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I thank the committee. I thank the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) for his response. I make just a brief comment. I understand the circumstances in which military equipment is required in national disasters. If there was, for example, to be a chemical or industrial accident, there may be some need for some military assets to be moved, although my understanding of the circumstances would be that it would mainly be some people. It would not be equipment intensive, which is the sort of thing we are talking about here with moving lots of things across the land.In respect of the domestic violence situation and 41B(6)(g), I must say that, if there were to be some sort of terrorist or similar activity to which the minister referred, I would not have thought the response would be an armoured column moving down the road. There are obviously other responses that would be used if the defence forces were called upon. I must say I have great difficulty envisaging the circumstances in which this clause would be activated, even given the minister's answer. However, I do not propose to seek a division on the issue. It is a comparatively minor part of the bill and one which I hope we are not going to have to return to at any point in the future.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.11 p.m. to 12.23 p.m.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—To conclude the comments that I was making prior to the division, whilst I cannot envisage a circumstance in which it would be necessary for substantial heavy equipment, of the sort that this bill refers to, to be transported around to deal with the types of contingencies mentioned by the minister, I nonetheless do not propose that we divide on it, on two bases that I would like to record. The first basis is the response provided by the minister, for which I thank him and which does clarify to some extent the government's expectations of the application of this clause.The second basis is that, under a worst-case scenario, even were it to be used in a manner that those on this side of the House—and also, I suspect, many other Australians—would have difficulty with, this bill does not of itself produce that outcome. It would be heads of power elsewhere that would facilitate a government decision to use the military in those ways. Even in a worst-case scenario, this bill would simply facilitate the transportation of the equipment rather than the authorisation of its use. On that basis, together with the minister's answer, for which I thank him, the opposition will continue its bipartisan support.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—If no member wishes to consider the 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.Bills3275r4843275Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.12:25:003275Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—In considering the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 I would like to begin my remarks with a quotation from Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan, who died recently, was arguably the world's foremost promoter and communicator of science and science issues, and some of his views are very relevant to the consideration of this bill. He is reported as saying:We've arranged a global civilisation in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.That is a very relevant thing to consider when we look at the provisions of this bill. This bill repeals the ASTEC Act, but does so in contemplation of the government's announced intentions of incorporating its functions, effectively, within the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, which will subsume most of the roles of ASTEC.ASTEC's primary function was to ensure that the government was able to take advantage of the combined experience and expertise of Australia's most representative and important scientists and engineers so that it could incorporate those things within its ongoing policy initiatives. The council has served a number of useful functions over the years and has produced many interesting and worthwhile reports.The new arrangements of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council will allow many of our premier bodies—for example, FASTS, the Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, the presidents of the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technological Sciences and other leading representatives of science in Australia—to meet together with our political leaders at the national level to ensure that they are well versed in the priorities of science and technology.I wish I could say that I look forward to the future of that committee with optimism, but, given the government's performance in two years in office in relation to science and technology, I think we would have to take a fairly pessimistic view of the potential outcomes of this new arrangement. While the opposition supports the change in principle, and also a number of our science and technology representative bodies have also welcomed this change, we do so with the caveat and the reservation that this government has shown no tendency in the past to rate science and technology highly and to ensure that it is incorporated into its budget strategies or into its overall policy framework.To look at this bill in context we must refer to the two previous budgets of this government. The reality is that in both of those budgets the science community, science and research in general have fared very badly under this government. One of its first decisions indeed set the tone for science and technology. One of the early decisions of this first Howard government—let us hope there is not a second—illustrates its attitude towards science and technology: the decision to relegate Australia's Chief Scientist from a full-time position to a one day a week job. How can anyone take science and technology seriously when the government demotes its chief scientist from a full-time position to a day a week? A day a week is simply an insult to the science and technology community, but does illustrate the government's attitude towards science and technology in general.There are some other very specific facts which we need to review, to come to a more detailed conclusion about how the government regards science and technology, research and development in general. In its previous budgets, for example, it has cut back funding for research in general by somewhat over nine per cent in the first budget, with a further one per cent cut in the budget last year. The total cut is thus around 11 per cent in the first two years of the Howard government's office.We have also seen this government dramatically cut university funding, and so, because science is quite expensive to do in universities, obviously university administrations will seek to cut their science and research organisations first. They will be the main losers in the context of those higher education cutbacks.We saw the government honour their promise to increase funding to CSIRO only to see, basically, the whole amount of that increase taken back from CSIRO by increases in the efficiency dividend and by the requirement for CSIRO to make capital repayments to the government from the sale of assets and property. We saw, of course, most significantly, the dramatic cutback in general government assistance for research and development which was paid through the taxation concessions. The reduction from 150 per cent to 125 per cent was very significant and has had a real impact on business research and development expenditure.Of course, the government also completely abolished the syndication taxation concession arrangements. They did that in a way that sought to imply that people taking advantage of those arrangements were tax rorters. Indeed, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) frequently refers to those science and technology taxation concessions as taxation rorts. Nothing could be further from the truth. While there is always the potential in any taxation concession for some dishonest people to try and exploit that, I think the syndication concession was very well arranged and ensured that only deserving projects were rewarded with the taxation concession. If there were any problems, the problems should have been tackled, not the overall scheme which did seek to bring together those who had good science with those who had surplus cash to ensure that the funding flowed to those innovative companies. However the government sought to cut that completely and that program has been abolished along with, as I say, the significant reduction from 150 to 125 per cent for the taxation concession.Also, we saw the government virtually double the HECS contribution to science degrees and that will ensure that fewer students take science as a degree choice at university. Obviously, students respond to market signals like everyone else. They are aware that this government has sent them a very powerful message by doubling the HECS contribution for science degrees. It is a very powerful message, indeed, and one which we will regret in future years as the number of our young people who would have been able to undertake science degrees and make a substantial contribution to science in Australia are discouraged from taking that career option at universities.We have also seen this government cut back on the CRC program, the cooperative research centre program. That was a very valuable program which ensured that there was science at the cutting edge of Australian industrial technology. It ensured that our best researchers, principally from the universities, were brought together in an entrepreneurial context with industry and best players in the public science bodies in a way which ensured that technology diffusion had the best possible opportunity to come to pass, with knowledge going from the universities through the CRCs and out into industry.The program also served the very valuable function of encouraging large numbers of postgraduate students to work closely with industry and with the very best of our academic researchers to ensure that we have a trained and skilled pool of young people moving out into industry who are well aware of the needs of industry and yet carry with them the very best that our academic researchers can put forward. That was a very targeted program. And what has this government done? It has substantially cut the funding available to that. Again, that sends a very powerful message to industry, young people, universities, and to researchers in our CRC community that their work is not particularly valued, that it is reduced in value by this government, and that they have no real confidence for the future.Indeed, the government was very destructive in the way in which it allowed Mortimer's recommendation to abolish the CRC program altogether to hang out there in the public view for months while it made up its mind whether it wanted to support that program in an ongoing way. While I agreed with many of Mortimer's recommendations, the particular one in relation to the CRC program was very ill-founded and very destructive. Unfortunately, instead of decisively rejecting that recommendation when it first came down, thereby sending the message to the CRCs that their work was indeed valued in our community, the government allowed that recommendation to stand in the community for months while it made up its mind whether it wanted to continue the program.The budget of last night again reinforces the view that this government does not particularly value science, innovation, research and development. Indeed, again, the budget speech failed to emphasise any of those areas. I could not find any reference in the budget speech last night—as I could not particularly last year, or in previous years—to science, innovation, education, research and development.The only reference in that area was to the NHMRC, which is health research, and that is questionable. My colleague the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) will no doubt say more about that in the future. But, apart from that one reference to medical research, there are no references in the budget to industrial R&D, to innovation in our manufacturing industry, to science or technology or education and the value which they bring to our young people and to the future of Australia.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—You haven't read what the ministers have said.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—Clearly, the speech by the Treasurer on the night of the budget is the highlight of the budget process. If a government values a particular enterprise in our society well, it will ensure that that features in the budget speech. That is how you rate governments on matters of science and technology.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—On the length of the speech?N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—Not on the length, no, but on the content. The content is highly relevant here. The Treasurer failed to take the opportunity to emphasise the importance of science and technology. Clearly, there were other areas which he thought it worth mentioning and they were highlighted. But science, technology, innovation, research, development and education—those critical things—were omitted from the Treasurer's speech. The relevance of it—XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—They were in the budget papers and in the ministers' statements.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—Clearly, the important part from a government's point of view is the speech. That is where they should have been; that is where they were not. If you look—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Labor never put anything about science in the budget speeches.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—Mr Deputy Speaker, apart from the fact those interjections are highly disorderly in this context, as I am sure you will indicate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Let me encourage you to ignore them.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—they are quite wrong. I will not be distracted by them, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you would not want me to be. Honourable members opposite want me to turn to the budget papers and to ignore the Treasurer's speech. There is always a temptation to ignore that speech. However, if we turn instead to the budget papers, as the honourable members opposite want me to, what, for example, should I quote from those? At random I will turn to chapter 4, page 19, where there is a very relevant quote on general research outlays which honourable members opposite are so fond of:Total outlays decline slightly over the forward estimates.Note that, Mr Deputy Speaker: `decline' over the forward estimates. It goes on:This is largely explained by a decline in ARC funding for research infrastructure, collaborative research grants and the High Performance Computing and Communications Programme.So when one does refer to those budget papers, the very documents which honourable members sought to have me quote from, one sees, in the government's own word, that funding for research in general will decline in future years and that it will decline because of a reduction in ARC grants for research infrastructure as well as for collaborative research grants and high performance computing and communications. Those are very critical areas for the future of Australian science. But, again, not only does the government not mention them in the principal speech but also, when detailing them in its papers, it seeks to justify that massive decline in future years on spending on general research.Why is this so important? The relevance of science and technology to economic development and jobs for our young people cannot be understated. The relevance of this was I think identified by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) himself following his recent trip to the United States. He met with a number of people, including the chair of the Federal Reserve over there, the equivalent of the chair of our Reserve Bank board, who I think educated the Prime Minister to some degree on the importance of IT in industrial development. Unfortunately, he should have broadened that understanding which he brought back from the United States about the importance of IT to the science and technology area in general. Research has shown quite clearly that some 40 per cent of all economic development in the United States post World War II—in the last 50 years—has been due to investments in the United States in science and technology, research and development, and innovation. So nearly half of all US growth in the last 50 years is due to investments in R&D.If Australia is looking to have a place in the Pacific region in the next century, clearly we need to emulate that massive investment which the United States has made in R&D and replicate that here in Australia. If we do not, we run the risk of Australia becoming a low wage, low skill economy, rather than a high wage, high skill economy based on innovation arising from research and development conducted in our universities, in the CRCs and in industry generally.Australia has always had a very good base of public sector investment in science and technology. Our CSIRO is a world famous organisation, justly so, because of the innovations which it has introduced over recent decades and the way in which it has translated those into useful products in industry. Also, in recent years, the previous government introduced the concept of the CRC program. That has been a very worthwhile innovation and one which has helped to diffuse that technology out into industry. Of course, we have yet to see this government respond in a positive way to any of those things.If we are going to experience, as the budget paper points out, a significant decline in funding for general research—and the trend in the graph published in the budget paper is of something which is declining; it is a downward trending slope—if that is continued as the out years forecast in the budget papers predicts, then clearly Australia will not be in a position to respond to the globalisation of our economy, or to the increase in innovation which other substantial countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France are experiencing. Particularly in the case of the US and the UK, they are experiencing substantial booms in their economy because of past investments in R&D. Despite this, the government here is only predicting a steady and certain decline.If you look more closely at those figures you will see that some organisations are not in such a decline. For example, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is due to experience very significant increases in its funding in future years. This is not because the government has singled out this agency for an increase; it is because this particular agency is to construct a new nuclear reactor on the Lucas Heights site. I will have more to say about that in another bill which is before this committee—it was to be debated later today but I assume it may now be tomorrow—in relation to radiation protection. Therefore, I will not canvass that at length now.I want to contrast the increase in ANSTO funding with the substantial cut in Australian Research Council funding, which is also detailed in the budget paper. We see this nice matching progression, a steady increase for ANSTO to fund a nuclear reactor and a steady decline in ARC funding. Obviously, that is where the increases in ANSTO's funding has come from. The government has sacrificed the Australian Research Council funding to pay for its new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.Because of past cuts in funding for ARC under this government, already only 19 per cent of grant applications lodged with the ARC by our young researchers are accepted. That means 80 per cent of those applications are declined. That is not because 80 per cent are in a poor state of science. It is because almost all of those cannot be funded by the available grants which the ARC has at its disposal.When you get down to a level where only one-fifth of those grant applications are being approved, obviously they will go to those researchers with a proven track record of research in ARC's terms. The grants will not go to those who are young, innovative, or who are trying to break into this field. That is a very serious thing for our progress in the next century.Also, this government will ensure that the 19 per cent figure declines even further because if we look to the out years, the funding for ARC for 1999-2000 will decline to $412 million; in 2000-2001 it will drop to $383 million; and in 2001-2002 it rises slightly to $390 million. That amount is some $50 million less than the current value of funding for ARC.That is a very serious decline in funding. It has been brought about by the government's decision to increase the funding to ANSTO by about the same amount over that period. Obviously, the minister has sacrificed ARC in order to fund ANSTO. That is a very poor decision indeed. It shows a considerable lack of foresight and a significant lack of understanding of the way in which science, technology and innovation can feed back into our community and promote job growth in this country.We largely have missed the IT bus. The reality is that this country does not have a leading position in relation to information technology. That is something which has occurred in recent years. While our Labor government was addressing that through a number of grants in innovation and the CRC program, I would certainly concede that more should have been done to address the IT issue during our term of government. However, this government has continued that trend. It has reduced funding for IT. It has removed the computer bounty, for example, and it has failed to see the benefits of information technology in a way which will feed back into the rest of the community.Molecular biology, genetic engineering, is possibly the next cab off the rank. What does the government do in relation to that? Almost nothing. It is impossible to find in this budget document any real leadership in science and technology. So, while we might have reasonable hopes for the PMSEC arrangements which will replace those of ANSTO, I am afraid that an analysis—as I have undertaken this morning—of the government's trend in these areas clearly does not give us much confidence.Again, this budget has failed to demonstrate the government's commitment to science and technology. It has reinforced that lack of commitment, lack of leadership and lack of vision on science and technology. This is not just a matter for political concern. It is, as I have said, a serious issue in the community where jobs are at stake and where growth in employment is at stake. This is not just about scientists in their laboratories. This is about providing jobs and economic growth for this country in the next century. Our young people will pay the price of the government's lack of vision.There are to be new arrangements for introducing the Prime Minister to those best representatives of science in our community from the leading technological societies in our community. I only hope that exposure to those people over the next year or so will ensure that the government—in the remaining 12 months of its term, or however much less the Prime Minister may choose to allocate—and the Prime Minister are better educated about issues of science and technology and that his ministers can bring to the cabinet table a better understanding of the need for job growth in this area. If the opportunities are not provided in science, technology, research, development and innovation, as they ought to be, Australia will not be in for an innovative future in the next century. Rather, many of our young people will face the unfortunate choices of a low wage and low skilled future.12:46:003280Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—The Howard government is, above all else, a forward thinking government. We are a government planning and actively working towards making Australia competitive well into the 21st century. We are a government of vision and our vision is one of practical achievement. Last night's budget showed quite clearly that we are prepared to put in the hard yards now to secure a better future for all of our children. Paying back the massive debt left behind by Labor is a cornerstone of our forward planning.I am pleased to say that technology and research are also part of our plan for a modern and competitive Australia. That is why, upon coming to office, we identified the need to examine how Australian science and technology systems could be improved. The Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 streamlines our current system winding down the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council. The current council is to become a standing committee of the Prime Minister's Science, Technology and Engineering Council.This standing committee will maintain the key task of preparing issue papers and presentations to the Prime Minister's council and undertaking consultation, information gathering and analysis to provide the Prime Minister's council with information and advice on Australian science and technology priorities. However, we have been careful to ensure that the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council maintains its independence. Indeed, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), in his second reading speech, outlined how the government values the independent role played by ASTEC.As the minister said, we have been carefully planning this bill to capitalise on the strengths of the current system while addressing some of its weaknesses. It seems commonsense to me to draw closer together the Prime Minister's advisory council and ASTEC. The ASTEC can still carry out its normal duties and information gathering but it now has a direct line to the ministry. It is a delivery mechanism that ASTEC has not enjoyed in the past and I am sure it will bring future benefits for Australian science and technology.Of course, the reason science and technology is important is not merely for academic purposes—we are not into `esoteric' visions—it is also that the Howard government is focused firmly on practical achievements. Scientific and technology developments benefit society in many ways. New developments help generate economic growth. While I am speaking of growth, I will take the opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on meeting the growth forecasts in last night's budget and for the continued expected growth of around three per cent, despite the Asian economic crisis. Last night's budget clearly has us back on track and back in the black. The reaction I have had in my conversations with local Forde residents this morning has been extremely positive.As well as economic growth, new technology developments help improve our health, help us find even better ways to protect our environment and help us to maintain our national security. There can be little doubt that our technological achievements over this century have dramatically improved our quality of living and have given us a whole range of new recreational and vocational pursuits. I am pleased to be a part of a government which is wholeheartedly committed to technology and scientific development. Our budget commitment regarding new software and the millennium problem will be a great boost to the information technology industry and it is indicative of our practical approach.Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are in a much better position to look at expanding our focus and support for new technology in the future. We are in a much better position because the budget is back in surplus. As the Treasurer said, `Isn't a great problem to have to work out where we can spend future budget surpluses.'Of course, in the short term, these have to go to pay back the huge government debt the Labor Party left behind, some $98 billion. But with things back on track, there will come a time when we are debt free as a nation and we can look at investing even more in emerging technology and scientific advancements. We have a proud history of achievement and the Howard government is committed to ongoing support for science and technology. Mindful of the time, I now commend this bill to the House.12:50:003282Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I begin by thanking the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) and the honourable member for Forde (Mrs Elson) for their contributions to this debate, particularly the honourable member for Forde who took the opportunity to respond to some of the baseless allegations made by the member for Bonython in relation to the government's commitment to science and, in particular, the content of last night's federal budget.The honourable member for Bonython in a very eloquent way used typical Labor rhetoric to misrepresent the government's commitment to science and technology, but sadly demonstrated the sort of fiscal illiteracy that led to the $10.3 billion deficit. He accused the government of lacking a commitment to science but at least had the grace to admit later in his remarks that Labor had not done much in this field.It is unfortunate, perhaps, that science and research and development issues do not gain much debating time in the House or the time of members of parliament in addressing the important issues for our country for the future. It is important that we have, as a nation, a commitment to science and a commitment to doing things better in the future.It is just beyond question, in spite of the comments of the member for Bonython, that there is a very high level of government expenditure in Australia on research and development by world standards. At a government level we spend more on research and development than does the US or, indeed, other leaders of industry in the OECD.Unfortunately, however, industry itself has not been quite so forthcoming and there has been a much smaller proportion of industry budgets spent on research and development. Whilst that problem has been improving over recent years and there has been increased expenditure by business on research and development, we still have some way to go to reach leading practice around the world in that regard.The government is determined to ensure that there is additional expenditure and commitment to research and development issues and that was reflected in last night's budget. The 1998 budget increased expenditure on science and technology by $90 million overall. I am surprised that the member for Bonython, since he endeavoured to give the impression to the committee that he had studied the budget in detail, had not uncovered that very obvious and very important statistic.There has been a particularly large increase in research and development in the health field, with major commitments in that regard and expenditure for the NHMRC up by nine per cent and in other health areas by 38 per cent. There is also support for industry and their efforts in research and development, with a 30 per cent increase in the Start program and IIF program.The estimate for the expenditure on tax concessions for R&D is up by six per cent. Expenditure on science agencies, such as the CSIRO, ANSTO and AIMS, is up by 3.6 per cent. There is no diminution of the government's commitment to science in this budget. Indeed, there is a clear indication that there will be more money available and, indeed, that the government will be following on its rhetoric with classic action by delivering additional funds to ensure that we have adequate resources available to support industry and, indeed, to back up the government's own commitment to expenditure in science and research and development.Turning particularly to the content of this bill, it implements changes announced by the government last year as an important element in improving Australia's science and technology administrative arrangements by bringing together the resources of ASTEC and the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council, PMSEC, into one organisation. The new organisation has now been reconstructed as the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. It combines the ability to draw on the best independent advice available, conduct studies—as ASTEC does at present—and deliver outcomes direct to the federal ministry.By repealing the ASTEC Act and implementing these new arrangements, the government will strengthen support for innovation and industrial growth. I note that the bill is supported by all sides of the House and I thank members opposite for their cooperation in that regard. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.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.Main Committee adjourned at 12.57 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing3284The following answers to questions were circulated:3284(Question No. 2187)21873284Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 1 September 1997:(1) Was a light aircraft overturned by winds at Essendon Airport while engaged in pilot training on 16 August 1997; if so, is the incident being investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation or the Federal Airports Corporation.(2) What was the highest recorded wind speed at Essendon Airport on 16 August 1997.(3) Are aircraft operations halted for safety reasons at Essendon Airport during strong winds; if so, at what wind speed; if not, will he ensure that restrictions are introduced in the interests of safety to pilots, passengers and nearby residents.(4) On how many occasions since 1 January 1970 have aircraft operations been halted at Essendon on account of strong winds.(5) On how many occasions since 1 January 1990 have recorded wind speeds at Essendon exceeded the maximum recorded on 16 August 1997.3284Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia has advised that a light aircraft (Cessna 172) was overturned by a strong wind gust while lining up for departure on Runway 35 at Essendon on 16 August 1997 and was reported to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI). This accident was assessed as a category 5 occurrence by BASI.Category 5 is reserved for occurrences where the facts, as revealed by the circumstances, clearly indicate no need for safety action by BASI.A copy of the database record created by BASI as a result of this accident is attached.(2) Airservices Australia has advised that the highest gust observed by the Tower controllers was 52 knots, shortly before the incident. The pilot had been advised of the wind at this time.(3) Airservices Australia has advised that Air Traffic Control (ATC) does not close runways at Australian airports due to strong winds. Crosswinds and/or downwind components are the significant factors in aircraft operations. ATC is responsible for ensuring that a pilot is fully informed of the prevailing weather conditions to enable the pilot to make the relevant operational decisions.It is the sole responsibility of the pilot to ensure the runway or direction nominated has sufficient length of run, and that the crosswind or downwind component is not greater than the maximum allowable for their aircraft in the prevailing conditions.ATC shall not nominate a particular runway for use if an alternate runway is available, when:(a) for runway conditions that are completely dry: (i) the crosswind component, including gusts exceeds 25 knots; (ii) the downwind component, including gusts, exceed 5 knots.(b) For runway conditions that not completely dry: (i) the crosswind component, including gusts exceeds 25 knots; (ii) there is a downwind component.A pilot may require the use of a runway which has wind characteristics different from the above limitations.Restrictions to operations do occur by way of aircraft operational limitations applicable, varying from aircraft type to aircraft type, which are specified in aircraft operating manuals.(4) Airservices Australia has advised that there is no data available to answer this question.(5) Airservices Australia has advised that there is no data available to answer this question.COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT—BUREAU OF AIR SAFETY INVESTIGATIONBrief Print (Public)Occurrence Number:970219Occurrence Type:AccidentLocationEssendon, AerodromeState:VICDate:16-AUG-97Time:1200ESTAircraft manufacturer:Cessna Aircraft CompanyAircraft Model:172NAircraft Registration:VH-SRVDamage to Aircraft:SubstantialDeparture Point:Essendon VicDeparture Time:Destination:Point Cook VicActual Landing Point:Type of Operator:Flying SchoolType of Operation:Instructional DualFlight Rules:VFRFlight Procedure:VFRFlight Conditions:VMCCrew Details:RoleClass of LicenceHours TotalHours on TypeLast 90 DaysPilot-in-CommandCommercial55762Injuries:FatalSeriousMinorNoneTotalCrew:22Passengers:0Ground:0Total:00022Occurrence Summary:The tower controller cleared the pilot to line up on runway 35. When the aircraft entered the runway, it encountered a strong crosswind gust from the left and over-turned. About seven minutes earlier the surface movement controller had advised taxiing aircraft that the wind was gusting to 52 kts.OASIS537 Printed on Tuesday 23 September 1997—10:19.3285(Question No. 2331)23313285Cobb, Michael, MPMr CobbMF4ParkesNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 2 October 1997:(1) What are the details of legal and associated costs resulting from Native Title claims each year claims have been made.(2) What is the source of funding for the costs referred to in part (1).3285Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The following information is provided on the costs associated with native title litigation in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Commission, the Attorney-General's portfolio, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The allocation within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's (ATSIC's) budget for native title purposes provides funding under the Native Title programme for two broad categories—the operating costs of Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs), and the cost of implementing and supporting claims under the Native Title Act 1993 .The implementation component of the programme is specifically for one-off costs associated with claim development such as legal, anthropological and research costs but also includes claim meetings, National Native Title Tribunal meetings and land tenure searches. ATSIC does not collect a breakdown of each individual cost item.Under the operational component of the Native Title programme NTRBs also engage in-house legal expertise as part of their core staffing levels. Most NTRB core staffing levels are between 10 to 14 staff of which 1 to 2 are lawyers.Details of ATSIC's Native Title expenditure since 1993 is shown in the following table: Financial YearNative Title FundingTOTALSOperatingImplementation1993/94*$3,500,000*3,000,000$6,500,0001994/95*$6,236,000*9,707,000$15,943,0001995/96$15,273,16912,208,908$27,482,0771996/97$23,851,86316,906,137$40,758,0001997/98**$26,763,351**16,562,649$43,326,000TOTALS$75,624,383$58,384,694$134,009,077Note * : Figures taken from the 1994/95 ATSIC Annual Report.Note ** : Figures taken from ATSIC Financial Management Information System (FMIS), as at 3 February 1998. Figures will vary by the end of the 1997/98 financial year.Expenditure details in relation to the National Native Title Tribunal and Legal Aid support to native title clients, which fall within the Attorney-General's portfolio, are as follows:Financial YearLegal Aid and Family ServicesNNTT1993/94$1,060$796,0001994/95$683,317$6,030,0001995/96$949,146$14,630,0001996/97$2,303,350$15,935,0001997/98*$1,816,626**$23,801,000Totals$5,753,499$61,192,000* To 31 March 1998** Attorney-General's portfolio budget statementsThe Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible, on behalf of the portfolio Minister, for providing instructions on native title litigation to which the Commonwealth is a party. Some of the Department's Running Costs and Compensation and Legal expenditure have resulted from native title litigation since it undertook this role. However it is impracticable to identify these costs discretely as they represent only a portion of the total costs under these items.There has been no expenditure to date on native title cost sharing with the States and Territories.The Government has offered to contribute to States and Territories, in broad terms, 75 per cent of their past act and intermediate act compensation costs and 75 per cent of their future act compensation costs arising from the 10-point plan. It has also offered to pay, until five years after the enactment of the 10-point plan amendments, 50 per cent of the administrative costs of State and Territory recognised bodies and alternative right to negotiate regimes.The offer is subject to conditions, including that if native title (along with other rights in the land) is acquired in order to grant a new interest in land the beneficiary of the grant must pay a proper financial contribution.3286(Question No. 2583)25833286Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 December 1997:(1) Further to the claims made by the Member for Leichhardt (Hansard , 25 November 1997,page 11003) in relation to the actions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) against Wingz North and Heli Adventure, what were the actions taken by CASA in relation to Wingz North and referred to by the Member.(2) Did CASA ever express concerns about the safety of Wingz North's operations; if so, what were the concerns.(3) Did CASA require Heli Adventure's chief pilot to be tested on the B206 type helicopter; if so, is this normal procedure. (4) Was it possible to undertake testing in Cairns; if not, why not.(5) Did CASA determine that Captain McGowan was unsuitable to be Heli Adventure's chief pilot because he had been in Cairns for only a short period; if so, (a) what criteria applied in making the decision and (b) on what regulations was the decision based.(6) Has he or his predecessor received correspondence or other representations on the matter from the Member or the companies involved.3287Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) CASA suspended the Air Operators Certificate (AOC) of Wingz North on 19 February 1997 for serious breaches of the Civil Aviation Regulations including overloading of aircraft. A notice outlining the reasons for the suspension was delivered on that date to the operator, Gary Maile Investments Pty Ltd.(2) Yes. CASA expressed concern about the safety of Wingz North's operation in:. 33 Non Compliance Notices issued to Wingz North by CASA in the period 4 October 1995 to 19 February 1997;. the Suspension Notice dated 19 February 1997;. the Affidavit of Robert Collins, District Flying Operations Manager, Cairns District, CASA, sworn on 4 March 1997 and filed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.The most serious of these concerns related to alleged overloading of Wingz North aircraft and the unauthorised carriage of dangerous goods.(3) Yes. CASA required Heli Adventure's Chief Pilot to be tested on the B206 type helicopter. On 7 October 1997 CASA advised Mr Pagget of Helico Pty Ltd of a date for Mr Rock's Chief Pilot interview and that a flight check would be required. It is normal procedure for CASA to flight check a prospective Chief Pilot. Since the Monarch and Seaview inquiries it has been recommended that all new Chief Pilots receive a flight check unless their competency is known to CASA through other means, i.e having worked for another company where flight surveillance was carried out as part of CASA's surveillance program.(4) Yes. The flight check was conducted in Cairns by the Flying Operations Inspector from the Townsville District Office, as the Cairns Office does not have a qualified helicopter Flying Operations Inspector.(5) No.(a) CASA considered it imperative that, in order to satisfactorily supervise the company's operations, it should have a full time Chief Pilot who was a resident of Cairns.On 23 September 1997, CASA wrote to Helico acknowledging receipt of Mr McGowan's nomination as Chief Pilot advising that the position would require full time residence in Cairns and asking if Mr McGowan was agreeable to relocate to Cairns. If Mr McGowan had been agreeable to this, arrangements would have been made to interview him. Subsequently, CASA was advised that Mr McGowan, who was a resident of Sydney, was not agreeable to this arrangement.(b) Section 28BB (1) of the Civil Aviation Act allows conditions to be imposed on an AOC where it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety.(6) Yes.3287(Question No. 2603)26033287Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 4 December 1997:(1) How many single voyage permits were approved (a) in 1996-97 and (b) from 1 July to 30 September 1997.(2) What are the details of (a) the cargoes and tonnages carried and (b) the ports of origin and destination associated with each single voyage permit approved (i) in 1996-97 and (ii) from 1 July to 30 September 1997.3287Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 595; (b) 196.(2) Data for 1996-97 was collected on the basis of permits actually used, whereas data for the September quarter 1997 was collected on the basis of permits approved.(a) and (b) Details of cargo, tonnages and ports of destination and origin of the single voyage permits.(i) actually used during 1996-97 is at Table 1. (There were 595 single voyage permits approved, 572 of which were actually used.)(ii) approved from 1 July 1997 to 30 September 1997 is at Table 2.TABLE 1DETAILS OF CARGO CARRIED, PORT OF ORIGIN AND PORT OF DESTINATION FOR EACH SINGLE VOYAGE PERMIT, 1996-97VesselSail DateFromToCargo DescriptionActual TonnagePALMSTAR LOTUS01/07/1996SYDNEYGEELONGCAT CRACKER FEEDSTOCK3,380ANRO TEMASEK01/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLERESIN37BUNGA BIDARA01/07/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO434ULSAN SPIRIT02/07/1996SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL45,308MSC SONIA02/07/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,383ARKTIS FANTASY02/07/1996DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES & SCRAP480ANRO ASIA03/07/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO419SHOWA MARU04/07/1996PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN12,151ANRO ASIA05/07/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO419FLINDERS BAY05/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO94PAOLA II05/07/1996SYDNEYGEELONGDIRTY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS7,600ERVILLIA05/07/1996GEELONGSYDNEYGASOLINE/ JETA114,000MAJAPAHIT07/07/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO325KOTA HARTA08/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100LIBRA AUSTRALIA08/07/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEPERSONAL EFFECTS6MAJAPAHIT08/07/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO50NEDLLOYD JAVA09/07/1996SYDNEY/BURNIEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO436BUNGA BIDARA09/07/1996SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,182ARKTIS FANTASY10/07/1996NEWCASTLETOWNSVILLEGRINDING MEDIA1,391SANKO PEARL11/07/1996SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL40,504AN BAO JIANG11/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEPAPER5,887MSC LAUREN12/07/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,042CHEMI CREST13/07/1996RISDONBRIS/ T'VILLESULPHURIC ACID6,517LIBRA AUSTRALIA14/07/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO722BUNGA TERASEK15/07/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYSTOCKFEED217CAPE MORETON16/07/1996BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,069NELSON BAY16/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO150TAKORADI16/07/1996SYDNEYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO16PACIFIC CHALLENGER17/07/1996PORT HEDLANDPORT KEMBLAIRON ORE123,090NOL IVORY18/07/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO820MSC BRIANNA18/07/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,570BUNGA DELIMA19/07/1996FREMANTLEBURNIESTOCKFEED108NOL IVORY19/07/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO200ANRO JAYAKARTA20/07/1996BRISBANEHOBARTMULLET18BUNGA TERASEK21/07/1996SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,249ARKTIS FANTASY24/07/1996TOWNSVILLENEWCASTLEGENERAL CARGO171CAPE ARNHEM25/07/1996BRIS/G'STONE/T'V ILLEDARWINGENERAL CARGO967MELODIA25/07/1996KWINANAMELB/BRISPETROLEUM PRODUCTS35,877BUNGA KENARI26/07/1996FREMANTLEMELB/B.BAY/ SYDGENERAL CARGO43BUNGA DELIMA26/07/1996SYD/MELB/BURN/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO734PACIFIC EMBOLDEN27/07/1996HAY POINTWHYALLACOAL38,000MSC GIOVANNA29/07/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,877NEDLLOYD JAVA29/07/1996FREMANTLEBURNIE/BELL BAYPERSONAL EFFECTS24ARKTIS FANTASY30/07/1996NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGRINDING MEDIA2,422PAOLA II31/07/1996SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL46,701MERCHANT PRINCIPAL01/08/1996BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE237BOTANY BAY01/08/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO103BUNGA KENARI02/08/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,119TAGANROG05/08/1996GEELONG/KWINANAPORT HEDLANDGASOIL & JETFUEL9,881ANRO GOWA05/08/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO752OLGA TOPIC06/08/1996HAY POINTNEWCASTLECOAL43,754ANRO GOWA07/08/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,355BUNGA BIDARA07/08/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO115OLGA TOPIC08/08/1996PORT LATTAMACKAYMAGNETITE10,012OOCL ACCORD08/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO605CALATAGAN09/08/1996FREMANTLEBRISBANEGALV STEEL COILS626NEDLLOYD JAVA09/08/1996SYDNEY/BURNIEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,354MSC GIORGIA09/08/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,999 CAPE INFANTE11/08/1996GROOTE EYLANDTNEWCASTLE/B.BA YMANGANESE ORE42,877ANRO GOWA12/08/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO109ARKTIS FANTASY14/08/1996DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTY TEUS AND SCRAP285MSC NURIA14/08/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO843HONSHU SPIRIT15/08/1996MELBOURNEKWINANALSWR14,831TEAM TROMA15/08/1996KWINANATAS/G'STONE /MACKAYPETROLEUM PRODUCTS33,289HANDY ROSELAND15/08/1996CHRISTMAS IS.G'TON/B'BUR Y/ALBANYROCK PHOSPHATE18,500CAPE CLEVELAND15/08/1996BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,176MATILDA BAY15/08/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEPOLYPROPYLENE30ANRO ASIA15/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO655PACIFIC EMBOLDEN16/08/1996HAY POINTWHYALLACOAL40,942BUNGA BIDARA16/08/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,874ANRO ASIA17/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO 407KOTA HASIL17/08/1996MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO600MELODIA19/08/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS31,413SAMPET HOPE19/08/1996MACKAYSYD/MELBETHANOL1,432ARKTIS FANTASY20/08/1996NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGRINDING MEDIA1,145BUNGA TERASEK20/08/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO371SAMPET HOPE20/08/1996BOTANYHOBARTLIQUID CAUSTIC SODA991PALLISER BAY21/08/1996FREMANTLEADELAIDEGLASS60ANRO ASIA21/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO84STOLT TENACITY21/08/1996RISDONBRISBANESULPHURIC ACID3,269SAMAR SPIRIT22/08/1996WITH. BAY/THEV ISLANDBRISBANENWSC & CRUDE OIL80,260MSC CLORINDA22/08/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,062ALAM TENGGERI23/08/1996CHRISTMAS IS.NEWCASTLEROCK PHOSPHATE10,400LIBRA AUSTRALIA23/08/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,455OOCL ALLIANCE23/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO75MARITIME FIDELITY25/08/1996GROOTE EYLANDTBELL BAYMANGANESE ORE24,200BUNGA DELIMA25/08/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO12ARAMAC27/08/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEMILK96CAPE MORETON27/08/1996BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO980BUNGA TERASEK28/08/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,752DISCOVERY BAY28/08/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO150ODENSE MAERSK30/08/1996KWINANAMELBOURNEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS28,206MSC DON GIOVANNI30/08/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,683KOTA HARTA30/08/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO180ANRO JAYAKARTA30/08/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,585PIETERSGRACHT01/09/1996WHYALLAPORT HEDLANDLONG LENGTH RAILS3,300ANRO JAYAKARTA01/09/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO699BUNGA KENARI01/09/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYSTOCKFEED206MSC MAEVA02/09/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,647BUNGA DELIMA02/09/1996SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,040ARKTIS FANTASY02/09/1996DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES & SCRAP319ANRO JAYAKARTA04/09/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO133NEDLLOYD JAVA05/09/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEPERSONAL EFFECTS16OOCL ACCORD05/09/1996SYDNEYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO15SANKO PEARL06/09/1996B.ISLAND/SALADI NGEELONGB.I.CRUDE &T.I.CRUDE60,968SEA TOW 409/09/1996NEWCASTLEWILLIAMSTOWNSTEEL FAB. MODULES548MSC DOMINIQUE09/09/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,130BUNGA KENARI09/09/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,099CAPE ARNHEM10/09/1996BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,125OOCL ENVOY11/09/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK144NOL AMBER11/09/1996SYD/MELB/BURNI EFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,016KOTA HASIL11/09/1996SYDNEYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO400ENCOUNTER BAY12/09/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO121ARKTIS FANTASY12/09/1996NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGENERAL CARGO1,211NOL AMBER12/09/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO707SENTOSA SPIRIT13/09/1996MELBOURNESYDNEYCRACKER RESIDUE5,000BUNGA BIDARA13/09/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYSTOCKFEED306 NEDLLOYD JAVA14/09/1996SYD/MELB/BURN/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,504ARKTIS FANTASY15/09/1996T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLEGENERAL CARGO148AMSTELGRACHT17/09/1996SYDNEYPORT HEDLAND3 X CRANES 616ZIM SYDNEY17/09/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK72OOCL ASSURANCE18/09/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO12BUNGA BIDARA19/09/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,218SOUTHERN CROSS MARU20/09/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK96LIBRA AUSTRALIA20/09/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO38MAYOR22/09/1996FREMANTLESYDNEYDUMP TRUCKS124MSC ANTONIA22/09/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,039ASHIYA STAR23/09/1996GROOTE EYLANDTNEWCASTLE/B.BA YMANGANESE ORE43,619CAPE CLEVELAND23/09/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,094BORAL GAS23/09/1996WESTERNPORTB/BAY/D'POR TPROPANE1,030LIBRA AUSTRALIA24/09/1996SYD/MELB/BURNI EFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,812ANDHIKA ADHIDAYA25/09/1996GEELONGFREMANTLEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS1,514BUNGA TERASEK25/09/1996FREMANTLEB.BAY/MELB. SYDGENERAL CARGO168MAJAPAHIT25/09/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO553MAJAPAHIT25/09/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,456OLYMPIC SYMPHONY26/09/1996SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL53,000FLINDERS BAY26/09/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO322MSC SONIA28/09/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,279ANDHIKA ADHIDAYA29/09/1996KURNELLKWINANASBS LUBES3,021ARAMAC30/09/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK69MSC LAUREN30/09/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,616STOLT AZALEA30/09/1996BOTANYADELAIDELIQUID CAUSTIC SODA3,487BUNGA DELIMA02/10/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO16BANDA SEA03/10/1996PORT STANVACMELB/P.KEM BLAC.BITUMEN & HSFO25,550AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE03/10/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK115NOL CRYSTAL03/10/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO102CAPE MORETON04/10/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO641ARKTIS FANTASY04/10/1996NEWCASTLEDARWINGRINDING MEDIA477NELSON BAY07/10/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO96BUNGA KENARI07/10/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO493SANKO PAGEANT08/10/1996THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL54,141KEN LADY09/10/1996DALRYMPLE BAYWHYALLACOAL19,943BUNGA DELIMA09/10/1996SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,269ANRO JAYAKARTA10/10/1996BRISBANEHOBARTLIME240MSC BRIANNA10/10/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,974ANDHIKA ADHIDAYA10/10/1996KWINANAADELAIDELIQUID CAUSTIC SODA2,910KOTA HASIL12/10/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO600GIGA 214/10/1996PORT HEDLANDPORT KEMBLAIRON ORE121,517BUNGA KENARI14/10/1996SYD/MEL/B.B/ADE LFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,367TALABOT14/10/1996BRISBANEFREMANTLEALUMINIUM BILLETS80BUNGA ORKID SATU15/10/1996PORT LATTAN'STLE/P.KE MBLAMAG'TITE & I.ORE PELLETS42,123ANRO JAYAKARTA15/10/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO110EBURNA15/10/1996KWINANAGORE BAY/KURNEL LCCG & UNLEADED G'LINE27,580MSC EDNA17/10/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,762NOL AMBER17/10/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO445CONSENSUS MANITOU18/10/1996CHRISTMAS IS.P'LAND/G'LO NGROCK PHOSPHATE13,650CAPE ARNHEM18/10/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO797NOL AMBER19/10/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO153NEDLLOYD JAVA19/10/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,134BUNGA BIDARA20/10/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO373OOCL ASSURANCE21/10/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO400WESTFIELD22/10/1996BURNIENEWCASTLEMAGNETITE7,491SANKO PAGEANT23/10/1996SYDNEYGEELONGCRACKER FEED8,637 CAPE INFANTA24/10/1996HAY POINTPORT KEMBLACOAL44,612ARKTIS FANTASY25/10/1996DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTY BOLSTERS & SCRAP199LIBRA AUSTRALIA25/10/1996FREMANTLESYD/BURNIEBAGGED CHEMICALS107MORETON BAY25/10/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO75MSC PRIDE26/10/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,002BUNGA BIDARA27/10/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,571NEDIMAR27/10/1996GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL30,057ODENSE MAERSK28/10/1996KWINANAB.BAY/BURNI E/MELBPETROLEUM PRODUCTS35,427PAOLA II29/10/1996THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL42,605BUNGA TERASEK30/10/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO246MSC KATIE30/10/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,435KOTA HARTA30/10/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100TAMPERE02/11/1996SYDNEYGLADSTONETRANSFORMER170LIBRA AUSTRALIA02/11/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,818PACIFIC SPIRIT02/11/1996MELBOURNEPORT STANVACMOGAS AND ULP5,204ARAMAC03/11/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT PRODUCTS138CAPE CLEVELAND04/11/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO810MAJAPAHIT04/11/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO736NOVOROSSIYSK05/11/1996SYDNEYFREMANTLEMACHINERY PARTS32ATTICA05/11/1996BRISBANEFREMANTLEMOTOR CRUISER26MAJAPAHIT05/11/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO115OOCL ACCORD05/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO140MATILDA BAY05/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO176OOCL ACCORD05/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO124SANKO PAGEANT06/11/1996GEELONGBRISBANECRACKER FEED9,900BUNGA DELIMA06/11/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO54MAJAPAHIT06/11/1996SYDNEYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO640BUNGA TERASEK06/11/1996SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,371NEDIMAR07/11/1996KWINANADARWINGASOIL5,000NOVOROSSIYSK07/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEVAPORIZER25OOCL EXPORTER07/11/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK115MSC NURIA07/11/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,638AMBER HALO09/11/1996GROOTE EYLANDTBELL BAYMANGANESE ORE41,965VICTORIA SPIRIT11/11/1996THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL41,898SANKO PAGEANT11/11/1996BRISBANESYDNEYLSWR18,900BUNGA KENARI11/11/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO225ARKTIS ATLANTIC12/11/1996DAMPIERDARWINTANKS10CAPE MORETON12/11/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO870MSC ALICE13/11/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,555ODENSE MAERSK13/11/1996KWINANAGEELONG/SYDGASOLINE28,042AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE14/11/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK92BUNGA KENARI14/11/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,761BUNGA DELIMA15/11/1996SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,049TEXAS16/11/1996NEWCASTLEFREMANTLEGRINDING BALLS840PAOLA II16/11/1996SYDNEYGEELONGDIRTY P. PRODUCTS34,127KYUSHU SPIRIT17/11/1996SALADINGEELONGCRUDE OIL30,259MSC DON GIOVANNI17/11/1996FREMANTLESYDNEYDUMP TRUCKS260NEDLLOYD JAVA17/11/1996FREMANTLEMELB/BURNI EGENERAL CARGO133ARKTIS FANTASY18/11/1996DARWINPORT ALMA/N'CAS TLEG.CARGO & EMPTIES1,384OOCL ASSURANCE18/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEEMPTIES & FROZEN MEAT82OOCL ASSURANCE19/11/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO260MSC DON GIOVANNI20/11/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,717BOTANY BAY20/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO115ARKTIS FANTASY23/11/1996TOWNSVILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES AND SCRAP218NOL AMBER23/11/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO572SIRATUS24/11/1996P.STANVAC/MELBGLADSTONEHSFO & C.BITUMEN39,803MSC MAEVA25/11/1996FREMANTLESYDNEYDUMP TRUCKS130NOL AMBER25/11/1996SYDNEYHOBARTLIME480NEDLLOYD JAVA25/11/1996SYD/MELB/BURN/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO567NOL AMBER25/11/1996SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO736KOTA HARTA26/11/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100OPPAMA SPIRIT28/11/1996DAMPIERMELBOURNENWSC21,077ZIM SYDNEY28/11/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK66 MSC MAEVA29/11/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,652PACIFIC WAVE30/11/1996B.ISLAND/ SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL44,701BUNGA BIDARA30/11/1996SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,124ARKTIS FANTASY30/11/1996NEWCASTLEDARWINGENERAL CARGO587LIBRA AUSTRALIA30/11/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEPERSONAL EFFECTS10BORAL GAS30/11/1996WESTERNPORTB.BAY/DEVO NPORTPROPANE1,026ODENSE MAERSK02/12/1996GEELONGKWINANAGASOIL13,026MSC INSA04/12/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,409ENCOUNTER BAY05/12/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO57CHEMICAL SYMPHONY05/12/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEDIESEL FUEL7,752CAPE ARNHEM06/12/1996G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO572NEW NEVIS07/12/1996PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN12,082ARKTIS FANTASY07/12/1996DARWINNEWCASTLEEMPTY BOLSTERS96MAJAPAHIT08/12/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO249LIBRA AUSTRALIA08/12/1996SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,480MAJAPAHIT09/12/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO548NOL CRYSTAL10/12/1996BRISBANEHOBARTLIME384ARKTIS ATLANTIC10/12/1996DAMPIERDARWINDRILLING MUD140KOTA HASIL11/12/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO760MSC SAMIA11/12/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,141PALMGRACHT12/12/1996MACKAYFREMANTLEREFINED SUGAR4,250BUNGA TERASEK12/12/1996SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO870SILVER PRIDE12/12/1996WESTERNPORTHOBARTLPG601BUNGA DELIMA13/12/1996FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO39SILIQUA14/12/1996SYDNEYKWINANA/GEELO NGCRACKER FEED27,667RATHROWAN14/12/1996NEWCASTLEPORTLANDLIQUID PITCH3,700PALMGRACHT15/12/1996NEWCASTLEBUNBURYMINERAL SANDS4,954CHEMICAL SYMPHONY16/12/1996KWINANAMELBOURNELUBRICANTS6,621OOCL ASSURANCE17/12/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO360BUNGA KENARI17/12/1996FREMANTLEB.BAY/MELBGENERAL CARGO232DISCOVERY BAY19/12/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO132HANDY LILY21/12/1996CHRISTMAS IS.4 WA PORTSROCK PHOSPHATE25,750FUJI MARU21/12/1996BURNIESYDNEYVEHICLES281ARKTIS FANTASY21/12/1996NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGRINDING MEDIA & RODS1,657RATHROWAN21/12/1996WHYALLANEWCASTLECOAL TAR3,806ECLIPSE22/12/1996P.S'VAC/P.B'THONMELBOURNEC.BITUMEN, C.BASIN CRUDE72,871OOCL ENVOY23/12/1996MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK POWDER110SACONA26/12/1996MELBOURNEKWINANAAUTO DIESEL FUEL11,524DIYYINAH26/12/1996GEELONGG.BAY/ C'DER BAYPETROLEUM PRODUCTS22,274SILIQUA27/12/1996SALADINGEELONGCRUDE OIL33,539BUNGA KENARI27/12/1996MELB/ B.BAY/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,240MSC SONIA27/12/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,261CAPE MORETON27/12/1996G/STONE'BRIS/T'V ILLEDARWINGENERAL CARGO223MSC BRIANNA29/12/1996FREMANTLESYDNEYGENERAL CARGO160NEDLLOYD JAVA30/12/1996SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,188BUNGA BIDARA30/12/1996FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO141OOCL ACCORD31/12/1996SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO900NELSON BAY31/12/1996MELBOURNEFREMANTLESEEDS48CAPE CLEVELAND31/12/1996G'STONE, BRISBANEDARWINGENERAL CARGO190MSC BRIANNA31/12/1996SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO485NOL CRYSTAL04/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO498OOCL ACCORD08/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO817NOL AMBER04/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEBUILDING MATERIALS120DIYYINAH05/01/1997GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL28,314NOL AMBER06/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO20BUNGA BIDARA07/01/1997SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,908BYRON BAY08/01/1997BRISBANEHOBARTLIME192TOURCOING10/01/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEBUS CHASSIS7OOCL ASSURANCE10/01/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEACETONE22ARKTIS FANTASY11/01/1997DARWIN, T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES & SCRAP419KOTA HASIL11/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO160BUNGA DELIMA11/01/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO131 ALMAVITA13/01/1997GROOTE EYLANDTBELL BAYMANGANESE ORE42,727ARKTIS BREEZE13/01/1997PORT ALMABROOMEAMMONIUM NITRATE1,120BYRON BAY13/01/1997BRISBANEHOBARTFISH20OOCL ASSURANCE13/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO280BYRON BAY13/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO170BYRON BAY13/01/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO80BYRON BAY13/01/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO20PACIFIC SPIRIT14/01/1997PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN13,500MORETON BAY14/01/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO92ARAFURA14/01/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO92PALM MONARCH16/01/1997DAMPIERP.STANVAC/ MELBOURNENWSC36,988OOCL EXPORTER16/01/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK92CAPE ARNHEM17/01/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,083MSC PRIDE18/01/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,186BUNGA DELIMA18/01/1997SYD/MEL/BBAY/B UR/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,715MAJAPAHIT18/01/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO308PAOLA II19/01/1997THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL36,585BUNGA KENARI20/01/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO96KOTA HARTA20/01/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100SAMOSET21/01/1997MELBOURNECAIRNSNAVY DIESEL2,773NOL CRYSTAL22/01/1997BRIS/SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO340MSC LAUREN23/01/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,576OOCL ENVOY23/01/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEUHT MILK69KRITTI COLOR25/01/1997GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL17,480OOCL ACCORD26/01/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO140PACIFIC SPIRIT27/01/1997SALADINSYDNEYCRUDE OIL40,000BUNGA KENARI27/01/1997SYD/MELB/BURN/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,278MATILDA BAY28/01/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO212LIBRA AUSTRALIA28/01/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO80KRITTI COLOR28/01/1997MELBOURNEKWINANAAUTO DIESEL FUEL10,295ARKTIS FANTASY29/01/1997DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEGENERAL CARGO471CAPE MORETON31/01/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,503PALM MONARCH01/02/1997PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN14,000STOLT SUNRISE02/02/1997NEWCASTLEPORTLANDSULPHURIC ACID5,999ATTICA04/02/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLEMINERAL ORE112BUNGA BIDARA05/02/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO115KOTA HASIL06/02/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO140NOL AMBER06/02/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO44NYK PROVIDENCE06/02/1997BRIS/SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO435NYK PROVIDENCE06/02/1997BRISBANEHOBARTGENERAL CARGO10NYK PROVIDENCE06/02/1997BRISBANEHOBARTLIME192NOL AMBER07/02/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO204LIBRA AUSTRALIA08/02/1997SYD/MELB/B.BAYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,260TORBEN SPIRIT09/02/1997VARANUS ISLANDP.STANVAC/G 'BRANDE.S.C'SATE/H.CRUDE OIL69,681OOCL ASSURANCE09/02/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO340MSC ALICE10/02/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,588ARKTIS FANTASY10/02/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGENERAL CARGO2,051BOTANY BAY10/02/1997MELB/BURNIEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO145ODENSE MAERSK10/02/1997KWINANAB.BAY/BURN/ MELBOURNEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS35,543CGM RENOIR11/02/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLEPLANT EQUIPMENT95NEDLLOYD JAVA11/02/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO304OTAVA12/02/1997MELBOURNEDARWINLUCERNE HAY725BUNGA BIDARA12/02/1997SYD/MELB/BUR/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,477CAPE CLEVELAND12/02/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,282MSC DON GIOVANNI13/02/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,394ARAMAC13/02/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEORANGES20ARKTIS FANTASY13/02/1997T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLEEMPTIES AND SCRAP32TAMPA15/02/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLEGRINDING BALLS400BYRON BAY15/02/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO366KOTA HARTA16/02/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO300BUNGA DELIMA17/02/1997FREMANTLEBURNIESTOCKFEED45STOLT OTOME17/02/1997RISDONYARRAVILLESULPHURIC ACID6,000MSC MAEVA18/02/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO924NEDLLOYD JAVA19/02/1997SYD/B.BAY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,364BYRON BAY19/02/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEBULK RESIN76KOKOPO CHIEF21/02/1997SYDNEYBRISBANEFORKLIFTS80OOCL ACCORD21/02/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO192OOCL EXPORTER21/02/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEMILK91MSC SAMIA23/02/1997FREMANTLESYD/MELBGENERAL CARGO630 CAPE ARNHEM24/02/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,257BUNGA KENARI25/02/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO373BUNGA DELIMA25/02/1997SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELAIDEBURN/FREMA NTLEGENERAL CARGO991MSC SAMIA26/02/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO821ENCOUNTER BAY26/02/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLESEED143NEW ZEALAND PACIFIC27/02/1997ADELAIDEBURNIEMACHINERY25SEAMASTER27/02/1997DAMPIERPORT STANVACNWSC78,827VICTORIA SPIRIT28/02/1997THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL41,851NEW ZEALAND STAR28/02/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEFOODSTUFFS20KOTA HASIL28/02/1997SYD/MELBADEL/FREMA NTLEGENERAL CARGO120NOL CRYSTAL02/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO380KOTA HASIL03/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,380BUNGA KENARI04/03/1997SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,597ARKTIS FANTASY04/03/1997NEWCASTLE/PORT ALMAT'VILLE/DAR WINGENERAL CARGO2,511NOL AMBER04/03/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/H OBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO650KONGSGAS04/03/1997BRISBANENEWCASTLEAMMONIA4,399SOCHI05/03/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLERAIL134SHILLA SPIRIT06/03/1997PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN13,500MSC INSA06/03/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,200STOLT LILY06/03/1997BOTANYHOBARTLIQUID CAUSTIC SODA3,978ARKTIS FANTASY07/03/1997T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLESCRAP & EMPTIES283OOCL ASSURANCE07/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEEMPTY CONTAINERS100SEAMASTER09/03/1997PORT STANVACPORT KEMBLAFUEL OIL13,696OOCL ASSURANCE09/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO240PRESTIGE09/03/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEREEFER CARGO43NOL CRYSTAL09/03/1997ADELAIDEFREMANTLEPET FOOD24CAPE MORETON10/03/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,359BUNGA BIDARA11/03/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO251ZIM SYDNEY11/03/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO80STOLT LILY11/03/1997RISDONGEELONGSULPHURIC ACID2,980DISCOVERY BAY12/03/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO150MSC SONIA14/03/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,372EBURNA16/03/1997KURNELL/GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL27,741KOTA HADIAH16/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100NYK PROVIDENCE16/03/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO948BUNGA BIDARA18/03/1997SYD/MELB/BBAY/ BUR/ADEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,130NEDLLOYD JAVA18/03/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO44BYRON BAY18/03/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/H OBARTFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,595KONGSGAS18/03/1997NEWCASTLEBRISBANEAMMONIA3,997MSC CLORINDA19/03/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,337TAMPERE19/03/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLEALUMINIUM BILLETS300ARAMAC20/03/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO88ARKTIS BLUE21/03/1997PORT ALMABURNIEEXPLOSIVES145CAPE CLEVELAND22/03/1997BRIS, G'STONEDARWINBEER & S.CYANIDE892LIBRA AUSTRALIA23/03/1997SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,295OOCL ACCORD23/03/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO420SAMOSET23/03/1997BRISBANEDARWINJET & GASOIL11,656UNISINA24/03/1997SALADINSYDNEYT. ISLAND CRUDE OIL34,949TAISHAN24/03/1997FREMANTLESYDNEYRAILS102NEDLLOYD JAVA25/03/1997SYD/BURN/B.BAYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,750BUNGA DELIMA26/03/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYS'FEED & CLAY TILES469MSC CHIARA27/03/1997FREMANTLEMELBOURNEFORKLIFT37TAKARA27/03/1997SYDNEYMELBOURNEYACHT & POWER BOAT35PRINS PHILLIPS WILLEM27/03/1997WESTERNPORTBELL BAYPROPANE550PROJECT ARABIA28/03/1997NEWCASTLEADELAIDESUBMARINE SECTIONS1,031BYRON BAY28/03/1997HOBARTFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO18PROJECT ARABIA28/03/1997NEWCASTLEADELAIDESUBMARINE SECTIONS1,031BUNGA KENARI01/04/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO105ALTNES02/04/1997NEWCASTLEBUNBURYMINERAL SANDS5,796WAVENES03/04/1997MACKAYFREMANTLESUGAR3,906OOCL ASSURANCE03/04/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO859STOLT LILY03/04/1997NEWCASTLEBRISBANESULPHURIC ACID5,000 NOL CRYSTAL03/04/1997BRIS/SYD/MEL/HO B/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO434OOCL ENVOY03/04/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO92DAISY03/04/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEB/BULK TIMBER15BUNGA DELIMA03/04/1997BELL BAYFREMANTLEFOODSTUFFS1,059MSC CHIARA04/04/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,127ARKTIS FANTASY04/04/1997NEWCASTLETOWNSVILLEGENERAL CARGO315CAPE ARNHEM07/04/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO912KOTA HADIAH09/04/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO382BUNGA KENARI09/04/1997SYD/MELB/BUR/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,867MSC PRIDE10/04/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,915BRAGE ATLANTIC10/04/1997MELBOURNEBUNBURYMETHANOL2,169EFDIM HOPE10/04/1997KWINANAGEELONGSINGLE SUPER PHOSPHATE11,551TAI SHAN11/04/1997PORT HEDLANDP. KEMBLA/NEWCAS TLEIRON ORE135,000NOL AMBER13/04/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO364BRAGE ATLANTIC15/04/1997GEELONGFREMANTLEVARIOUS SOLVENTS2,514MSC LAUREN15/04/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,069BUNGA BIDARA15/04/1997FREMANTLEBURNIE/MELBGENERAL CARGO45TOBA15/04/1997SYD/BRISFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO219LIBRA AUSTRALIA16/04/1997SYD/MELB/B.BAYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,272NOL AMBER16/04/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO73NYK PROVIDENCE16/04/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/AD ELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO716ZIM SYDNEY17/04/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO69OOCL ACCORD18/04/1997SYDNEY/ADELADEL/MELB/F REMANTLEEMPTY CONTAINERS336FILI18/04/1997MELBOURNEPORT STANVACULP5,220ARKTIS FANTASY19/04/1997TOWNSVILLENEWCASTLESCRAP & EMPTIES239CAPE YORK19/04/1997G'STONE/BRISBA NEDARWINBEER & FLYASH1,516OOCL ACCORD20/04/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO320REGENT SEA20/04/1997PORT STANVACMELB/G'STO NEC.BITUMEN & LSFO27,483NYK PROVIDENCE20/04/1997SYDNEYHOBARTMULLET18SOUTHERN CROSS MARU21/04/1997SYDNEYBRISBANEFLOAT GLASS22NEDLLOYD JAVA21/04/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO489BUNGA BIDARA22/04/1997SYD/MELB/BURN/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,052MSC BRIANNA23/04/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,690HUMBOLT CURRENT23/04/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLEMOTOR CRUISER22NYK PROVIDENCE23/04/1997MELBOURNEHOBARTMEAT & BONE MEAL100EVER GLORIA24/04/1997ARDROSSANPORT KEMBLADOLOMITE39,713BYRON BAY24/04/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE240BYRON BAY24/04/1997BRIS/SYD/MEL/AD ELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO846TARONGA24/04/1997MELBOURNESYDNEYYACHT & POWERBOAT34TAGANROG25/04/1997GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL34,027ARKTIS FANTASY26/04/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGRINDING MEDIA & RODS2,219CHINA STEEL TRADER27/04/1997PORT HEDLANDP. KEMBLA/NEWCAS TLEIRON ORE130,219KOTA HASIL27/04/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO100BUNGA DELIMA28/04/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO147ODENSE MAERSK28/04/1997KWINANAMELBOURNEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS35,816NEDLLOYD JAVA29/04/1997SYD/MELB/B.BAYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,952ARKTIS FANTASY02/05/1997TOWNSVILLENEWCASTLESCRAP & EMPTIES283OOCL ASSURANCE04/05/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO600NEGO KIM06/05/1997CHRISTMAS IS.N'CASTLE/ G'LONGROCK PHOSPHATE24,650BUNGA DELIMA06/05/1997SYD/MEL/BURN/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,057BUNGA KENARI06/05/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO65NOL CRYSTAL08/05/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE240MSC DON GIOVANNI08/05/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,614CAPE CLEVELAND08/05/1997G'STONE/BRIS/T'V ILLEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,656TAGANROG08/05/1997GEELONGDARWINGASOIL4,247 NOL CRYSTAL08/05/1997BRIS/SYD/MEL/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO433PACIFIC SPIRIT10/05/1997PORT STANVACMELBOURNECUTBACK BITUMEN6,797TAIKO10/05/1997BRIS/SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO945KOTA HADIAH11/05/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO130ODENSE MAERSK11/05/1997MELBOURNEKWINANAGASOIL6,400LIBRA AUSTRALIA12/05/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEOATS54RATHROWAN13/05/1997NEWCASTLEPORTLANDLIQUID PITCH3,769BUNGA KENARI14/05/1997SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,376ALTNES14/05/1997ALBANYADELAIDESINGLE SUPERPHOSPHATE5,892MSC MAEVA15/05/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,498SILVER DAWN15/05/1997SYDNEYADELAIDE/FREMA NTLEEMPTY CONTAINERS348HAVFRU17/05/1997PORT BONYTHONHOB/P.BOT/G' STONE/BRISPROPANE4,500NOL AMBER18/05/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO677SILVER DAWN19/05/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO480CAPE ARNHEM19/05/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,300LIBRA AUSTRALIA20/05/1997SYD/MEL/BUR/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,620NOVOROSSIYSK20/05/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO390BUNGA BIDARA20/05/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYSTOCKFEED & G.CARGO128ENCOUNTER BAY21/05/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO41ARKTIS FANTASY22/05/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WINGENERAL CARGO2,122NYK PROVIDENCE22/05/1997BRISBANE/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO300NYK PROVIDENCE22/05/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO659ARKTIS HUNTER22/05/1997PORT ALMAWYNDHAMAMMONIUM NITRATE2,543PALMSTAR CHERRY22/05/1997SYDNEYGEELONGCRACKER FEED/FOBC10,487ARABELLA23/05/1997KWINANAADEL/G'LON G/P'LANDSINGLE SUPERPHOSPHATE12,027SEA TOW 424/05/1997RISDONPORT PIRIEUNLOADER CRANE670MSC NURIA24/05/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,112KOTA HASIL25/05/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO600STAVANGER BREEZE27/05/1997GEELONGDARWIN/DAMPIE RGASOIL/JET32,501NEDLLOYD JAVA27/05/1997FREMANTLEBURNIE/MELBGENERAL CARGO185PRINS PHILPS WILLEM27/05/1997WESTERNPORTBELL BAYPROPANE650BUNGA BIDARA28/05/1997SYD/MEL/B.BAY/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,063ODENSE MAERSK29/05/1997BRISBANEKWINANALIGHT CYCLE OIL & NAPHTHA20,455ARKTIS FANTASY29/05/1997DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES AND SCRAP315CAPE YORK29/05/1997GLADSTONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,587OOCL ASSURANCE30/05/1997SYDNEYMELB/ADEL/F REMEMPTY CONTAINERS226PACIFIC PLUTO30/05/1997SYDNEYGEELONGDIRTY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS4,950MSC ALICE31/05/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,953OOCL ASSURANCE01/06/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO500BYRON BAY01/06/1997SYD/MELB/HOB/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO811BYRON BAY01/06/1997SYDNEYHOBARTREEFER CARGO20SUKRA DENIZ03/06/1997KWINANAMELBOURNEPHOSPHATE11,949BUNGA DELIMA03/06/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO191SIRATUS03/06/1997THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYTHEVENARD ISLAND CRUDE OIL31,707IRENE04/06/1997PORT STANVACMELB/P.KEM/ G'STONEC.BITUMEN/HSFO43,411BYRON BAY04/06/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEFISH MEAL60NEDLLOYD JAVA04/06/1997SYD/MEL/BURNBURN/ADEL/F REMGENERAL CARGO2,105MSC GIOVANNI06/06/1997FREMANTLESYDNEYGENERAL CARGO53CHINA STEEL EXPRESS07/06/1997PORT HEDLANDP.KEMBLA/NE WCASTLEIRON ORE132,862BUNGA DELIMA10/06/1997SYD/B.BAY/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,353SANKO PHOENIX12/06/1997THEVENARD IS.SYDNEYTHEVENARD ISLAND CRUDE OIL39,918OOCL ACCORD12/06/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO145ATARAXIA13/06/1997KWINANAADEL/P'LAND /G'LONG/N'C ASTLEPHOSPHATE7,008BUNGA KENARI13/06/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO177 ATARAXIA13/06/1997KWINANAMACKAY/T'V ILLEDI-AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE3,139GOLDEN SHIELD13/06/1997KWINANAMELBOURNELUBRICANTS4,048NCC RIYAD14/06/1997MELBOURNE/GEELON GFREMANTLEGASOIL/LBS/SOLVENTS14,601MSC GIOVANNA14/06/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,223TAPIOLA14/06/1997BRIS/SYDFREMANTLE/BUNBUR YGENERAL CARGO466OOCL ACCORD15/06/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO420ARKTIS FANTASY15/06/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DAR WING.MEDIA & RODS2,480NOL CRYSTAL15/06/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO591STOLT AYAME16/06/1997MELBOURNEBUNBURYMETHANOL1,898LIBRA AUSTRALIA16/06/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYOATS & PERSONAL EFFECTS240NOL AMBER17/06/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/A DELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO387ODENSE MAERSK17/06/1997KWINANAB.BAY/BURN/ MELBOURNEPETROLEUM PRODUCTS32,087TAKORADI17/06/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEPRIME MOVER & TILES219NOL CRYSTAL18/06/1997SYDNEYBURNIEREEFER CARGO19BUNGA KENARI18/06/1997SYDNEYBURNIEFOODSTUFFS40ARKTIS FANTASY18/06/1997T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLEEMPTIES & SCRAP & A.NITRATE329NOL AMBER19/06/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE240CAPE CLEVELAND19/06/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO433MSC KATIE19/06/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,188BUNGA KENARI19/06/1997SYD/MELB/BURNFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,103KOTA HARMUNI20/06/1997MELBOURNEADEL/FREMA NTLEWAX EMULSION & EMPTIES62NOL AMBER22/06/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO73SIRATUS23/06/1997MELBOURNEPORT STANVACDIRTY NAPHTHA35,958KOTA HARMUNI23/06/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO620LIBRA AUSTRALIA23/06/1997SYD/MELB/B.BAY/ ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO720LIBRA AUSTRALIA23/06/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN & HOPPER18BUNGA BIDARA26/06/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO105OOCL ASSURANCE26/06/1997SYD/MELBADEL/FREMA NTLEGENERAL CARGO66SEABRIDGE29/06/1997THEVENARD IS.MELBOURNETHEVENARD ISLAND CRUDE OIL37,739OOCL ASSURANCE29/06/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO620PRINS PHILPS WILLEM29/06/1997WESTERNPORTBELL BAYPROPANE420NYK PROVIDENCE29/06/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO352MSC DOMINIQUE30/06/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,536NYK PROVIDENCE30/06/1997SYD/MELB/HOB. ADELAIDEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO708TABLE 2DETAILS OF CARGO, PORT OF ORIGIN AND PORT OF DESTINATION FOR EACH SINGLE VOYAGE PERMIT APPROVED DURING JULY-SEPTEMBER 1997VesselSchedule Sail DateFromToCargo DescriptionEstimated TonnageARKTIS FANTASY06/07/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DARWI NGRINDING MEDIA2,990KOTA HADIAH04/07/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400BYRON BAY03/07/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,000KOTA HADIAH03/07/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO62BYRON BAY06/07/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO500BUNGA DELIMA08/07/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO500NEDLLOYD JAVA08/07/1997B.BAY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,720NEDLLOYD JAVA12/07/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN280BERING SEA26/07/1997PORT STANVACMELB/G'LONG/ GLADSTONEC.BITUMEN/GASO IL/HSFO59,500RATHBOYNE07/07/1997NEWCASTLEPORTLANDLIQUID PITCH4,000 RATHBOYNE14/07/1997WHYALLANEWCASTLECRUDE COAL TAR3,000TALABOT07/07/1997MELB/SYD/BRISFREM/BUNBURYGENERAL CARGO693SANKO PAGEANT05/07/1997SYDNEYGEELONGFUEL OIL BLENDING 5,500NOL CRYSTAL17/07/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE240MSC LAUREN09/07/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,914SEABRIDGE11/07/1997MELBOURNEPORT STANVACNAPHTHA9,000CONTSHIP ROMANCE10/07/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEFOODSTUFFS460ARKTIS FANTASY10/07/1997T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLESCRAP & EMPTIES590TANA11/07/1997FREMANTLEMELBOURNECRANE AND PARTS500BUNGA DELIMA19/07/1997BURNIEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,000ELISABETH BOYE28/07/1997PORT ALMABURNIEMINING EXPLOSIVES90BUNGA KENARI16/07/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO750BUNGA DELIMA15/07/1997SYDNEYBURNIEGENERAL CARGO600CAPE YORK13/07/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO2,000J SUDA13/07/1997PORT KEMBLAWESTERNPORTSTEEL COILS700STOLT AZALEA31/07/1997MELBOURNENARRACOOPAGASOIL4,000MSC BRIANNA17/07/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,405KOTA HARMUNI18/07/1997SYDNEY/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400NOL CRYSTAL17/07/1997BRIS/SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,233NOL CRYSTAL17/07/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,000RATHROWAN28/07/1997NEWCASTLEBOYNELIQUID PITCH3,750RATHROWAN08/08/1997NEWCASTLEPORTLANDLIQUID PITCH2,500RATHROWAN15/08/1997WHYALLANEWCASTLECRUDE COAL TAR3,750KOTA HARMUNI18/07/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLECOPPER & FOODSTUFFS66TANA19/07/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO60BUNGA DELIMA20/07/1997BURNIEADELAIDEHARD FROZEN CHIPS240MSC EDNA26/07/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,868TEEKAY SPIRIT18/07/1997SALADINSYDNEYT.ISLAND CRUDE OIL40,000OLGA MAERSK23/07/1997GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL25,000CONTSHIP ACTION25/07/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO392LIBRA AUSTRALIA22/07/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGRAIN240OOCL AMITY27/07/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400SOUTHGATE03/08/1997CHRISTMAS ISLANDESP/ALB/KWIN/G ER'TNROCK PHOSPHATE25,000BUNGA KENARI23/07/1997SYD/MELB/B.BA Y/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,050MSC DON GIOVANNI30/07/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO4,158ARKTIS FANTASY28/07/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DARWI NGENERAL CARGO2,770LIBRA AUSTRALIA29/07/1997SYD/MELB/BUR/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,010LIBRA AUSTRALIA29/07/1997SYDNEYBURNIESTEEL480OOCL AMITY25/07/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEWAX EMULSION60BUNGA BIDARA29/07/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO700PROSPER VENTURE14/09/1997PORT HEDLANDP.KEMBLA/N'ST LEIRON ORE135,000IRENE28/07/1997WESTERNPORTKURNELLGIPPSLAND CRUDE OIL74,000NOL AMBER28/07/1997SYD/MELB/HOB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO466BOTANY BAY30/07/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO522NOL AMBER28/07/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,430NYK PROVIDENCE30/07/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,000NYK PROVIDENCE31/07/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO502 LIBRA AUSTRALIA29/07/1997SYDNEYBURNIEGLUTEN360TAGANROG30/07/1997GEELONGDARWINGASOIL4,300MSC MAEVA08/08/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,884KOTA HADIAH01/08/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400FRESHWATER BAY02/08/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO164SANKO PEARL30/07/1997THEVENARD ISLANDSYDNEYT.ISLAND CRUDE OIL17,500CAPE CLEVELAND04/08/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,880ARKTIS FANTASY01/08/1997T'VILLE/DARWINNEWCASTLEGENERAL CARGO763BARBICAN SPIRIT13/08/1997FREMANTLEBRISBANES X BOATS46BUNGA BIDARA09/08/1997BURNIEADELAIDEFOODSTUFFS760KOTA HADIAH03/08/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO62BUNGA BIDARA04/08/1997SYD/MEL/B.BAY/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,100OOCL ACCORD08/08/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400BUNGA BIDARA05/08/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN360BUNGA DELIMA20/08/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN252NEDLLOYD JAVA12/08/1997SYDNEYBURNIEGLUTEN & STEEL480NEDLLOYD JAVA12/08/1997SYD/MEL/BURN/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,757BYRON BAY03/08/1997FREMANTLEHOBARTTYRES140NEDLLOYD JAVA05/08/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO298MSC NURIA13/08/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,946NCC TIHAMAH20/08/1997MELB/G'LONGKWIN/B'URY/FR MGASOIL,METHAN OL,LUBES13,500SERAYA SPIRIT20/08/1997PORT STANVACMELB/SYDC.BITUMEN/HSFO24,000GOLDEN KAY11/08/1997KWINANAMELBOURNELUBRICANTS5,000OOCL ACCORD10/08/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEWAX EMULSION60BYRON BAY11/08/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,250BYRON BAY10/08/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO281ENCOUNTER BAY13/08/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO252SEA TOW 413/08/1997NEWCASTLEWILLIAMSTOWN2 X HULL MODULES550TEXAS11/08/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLESTEEL BARS22BUNGA DELIMA12/08/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO300PROJECT EUROPA12/08/1997BOTANYFREMANTLERUBBER TYRED GANTRIES (2)260ODENSE MAERSK10/08/1997KWINANAMELB/B.BAY/BU RNPETROLEUM PRODUCTS36,100PRINS PHILPS WILLEM14/08/1997WESTERNPORTBELL BAYPROPANE560BUNGA KENARI19/08/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO600OOCL AMITY22/08/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400TAGANROG16/08/1997DARWINGEELONGOFFGRADE GASOIL4,500ARKTIS FANTASY20/08/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/ DARWINGENERAL CARGO2,150RATHBOYNE22/08/1997NEWCASTLEBOYNELIQUID PITCH6,000AL DHABIYYAH16/08/1997KWINANABRISBANEGASOIL26,200BUNGA DELIMA22/08/1997MELB/B.BAY/AD ELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,100MSC ALICE23/08/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,964DOCK EXPRESS 1014/09/1997BOTANYBELL BAYCONTAINER CRANE705MSC OSAKA24/08/1997FREMANTLEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO1,601NOL CRYSTAL24/08/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,330CAPE ARNHEM22/08/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO2,177OLGA MAERSK23/08/1997GEELONGESPERANCEGASOIL20,000ARKTIS HOPE26/08/1997MACKAYFREMANTLESUGAR IN BAGS4,200NOL CRYSTAL24/08/1997SYD/MEL/HOB/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO577SOUTHGATE28/08/1997CHRISTMAS ISLANDKWINANA/ALBANYROCK PHOSPHATE18,900TARONGA14/09/1997BRIS/SYDFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO620NOVOROSSIYSK23/08/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO40TRINIDAD24/08/1997BRIS/SYDFREMANTLETRUCKS (7)18TOBA28/08/1997ADELAIDEBRISBANEGENERAL CARGO210 RATHROWAN26/08/1997NEWCASTLEPORTLANDLIQUID PITCH2,000SEAFALCON03/09/1997PORT STANVACMELBOURNEC.BITUMEN/HSFO16,000BUNGA KENARI25/08/1997SYD/MELB/BUR/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,050BUNGA KENARI26/08/1997SYDNEYBURNIESTEEL120LIBRA AUSTRALIA26/08/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGRAIN450LIBRA AUSTRALIA02/09/1997SYD/MELB/BURN /ADEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,020MSC SONIA29/08/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,582NOL AMBER28/08/1997BRIS/SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO754NOL AMBER28/08/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLESODIUM CYANIDE120KOTA HADIAH31/08/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400NOL AMBER27/08/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,760RATHROWAN30/08/1997WHYALLANEWCASTLECRUDE COAL TAR3,750ARKTIS FANTASY29/08/1997DARWIN/T'VILLENEWCASTLEEMPTIES & SCRAP 733TIAN YANG HAI24/09/1997PORT HEDLANDPORT KEMBLAIRON ORE130,000KOTA HADIAH29/08/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLECOPPER22LIBRA AUSTRALIA02/09/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN280HAPPY BUCCANEER31/10/1997PORT BOTANYFREMANTLECONTAINER CRANE706CAPE YORK30/08/1997NEWCASTLEDARWIN/BRISG.BALLS & EMPTIES129CAPE YORK03/09/1997G'STONE/BRISDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,992OOCL ACCORD04/09/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400KASUGA 130/08/1997FREMANTLESYDNEYCATAMARAN23KASUGA 107/09/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLESUGAR140SAMAR SPIRIT21/09/1997PORT STANVACPORT KEMBLAHIGH SULPHUR FUEL OIL22,000AUSTRALIA BRIDGE04/09/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEFOODSTUFFS140PRESTIGE05/09/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO127CONTSHIP VISION05/09/1997MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO240CLAUDIA05/09/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO4,104BYRON BAY11/09/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,388MIAMI05/09/1997FREMANTLEBRISBANELUPINS & OATS220KASUGA 107/09/1997SYD/MELB/HOB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO220KASUGA 107/09/1997SYD/MELB/HOB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,124POUL SPIRIT06/09/1997THEVENARD ISLANDSYDNEYCRUDE OIL41,300ODENSE MAERSK08/09/1997KWINANADARWINPETROLEUM PRODUCTS37,450OOCL ACCORD07/09/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO120BUSAN07/09/1997FREMANTLESYD/BRISGENERAL CARGO1,533SANKO PAGEANT09/09/1997SALADINSYDNEYTHEVENARD ISLAND 36,000CRUDEBUNGA BIDARA09/09/1997SYDNEYBURNIEGLUTEN480NEDLLOYD JAVA09/09/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO570BUNGA BIDARA09/09/1997SYD/MEL/BURN/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,100KOTA HARMUNI11/09/1997SYD/MELBFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,400BYRON BAY11/09/1997BRIS/SYD/MELB/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,044ARKTIS FANTASY13/09/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DARWI NGENERAL CARGO2,574NEDLLOYD JAVA16/09/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN400NEDLLOYD JAVA16/09/1997SYD/MELB/BELL BAYFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,720NELSON BAY12/09/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO364PIONEER SPIRIT21/09/1997DAMPIERPORT STANVACNORTH WEST SHELF 78,000CONDENSATEMSC SAMIA14/09/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,548BYRON BAY11/09/1997BRISBANEFREMANTLEPAVERS20 BUNGA DELIMA16/09/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGENERAL CARGO700ARAMAC12/09/1997MELBOURNEBRISBANEFOODSTUFFS160BUNGA BIDARA14/09/1997BURNIEADELAIDEMACHINERY100ORACIAN17/09/1997MELBOURNECAIRNSNAVY DIESEL/JET A1/ADF8,000CONTSHIP AMBITION18/09/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEROOF TILES300KOTA HADIAH28/09/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO1,420TAKORADI18/09/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLETRUCKS (4)5SANKO PHOENIX17/09/1997BARROW & AIRLIE IS.SYDNEYCRUDE OIL39,800SALINTHIP NAREE02/10/1997CHRISTMAS ISLANDHOB/NEWCROCK PHOSPHATE17,000BUNGA KENARI23/09/1997FREMANTLEBELL BAYGENERAL CARGO500BUNGA DELIMA23/09/1997SYDNEYBURNIEGLUTEN & STEEL640NOL CRYSTAL25/09/1997BRIS/SYD/MEL/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO935MSC CHIWAN21/09/1997FREMANTLEMELB/SYD/BRISGENERAL CARGO1,533PRINS PHILPS WILLEM25/09/1997WESTERNPORTBELL BAYPROPANE600OOCL AMITY18/09/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLECOPPER23ARKTIS FANTASY21/09/1997DARW/T'VILLENEWCASTLESCRAP & EMPTIES585BUNGA DELIMA22/09/1997SYD/MELB/BURFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,100CAPE CLEVELAND20/09/1997NEWCASTLEDARWINGENERAL CARGO22MSC PRIDE26/09/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,561CAPE CLEVELAND24/09/1997BRIS/G'STONEDARWINGENERAL CARGO1,562SANKO PAGEANT23/09/1997SYDNEYGEELONGFUEL OIL BLENDING COMP8,000MSC LAUREN02/10/1997SYD/MELB/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO3,079NOL AMBER05/10/1997SYD/MELB/HOB/ ADELADEL/FREMGENERAL CARGO2,856NOL CRYSTAL25/09/1997BRIS/SYD/MEL/A DELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,760BARBICAN STAR25/09/1997FREMANTLEBRISBANEOATS/LUPINS350TRICOLOR24/09/1997FREMANTLEBRISBANEVOLVO LOADER10OLGA MAERSK01/10/1997GEELONGESP/KWINANAGASOIL/DIESEL31,500TAGANROG23/09/1997GEELONGTOWNSVILLENAPHTHA3,200BUNGA KERANJI23/09/1997THEVENARD ISLANDGEELONGCRUDE OIL10,500NOL CRYSTAL25/09/1997BRIS/SYDFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO900BUNGA KENARI29/09/1997SYD/MELB/B.BA Y/ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,100SOCOFL WIND02/10/1997NEWCASTLEESPERANCEAMMONIUM NITRATE2,500BUNGA KENARI30/09/1997SYDNEYBELL BAYGLUTEN500FRESHWATER BAY01/10/1997MELBOURNEFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO309LIBRA AUSTRALIA30/09/1997FREMANTLEBURNIEGRAIN400LIBRA AUSTRALIA08/10/1997SYD/MEL/BURN/ ADELFREMANTLEGENERAL CARGO2,020ARKTIS FANTASY05/10/1997NEWCASTLET'VILLE/DARWI NGRINDING MEDIA1,875OOCL ACCORD02/10/1997SYDNEYFREMANTLECOPPER & CHEESE443301(Question No. 2606)26063301Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What soldering jobs were to be performed using the equipment referred to in the tender for soldering stations, reference CNA/4165/2/74. (2) Did the tender specify that the iron temperature must either be microprocessor controlled with tip temperature digitally regulated, monitored and displayed or incorporate self regulating AC skin effect heating where the temperature is determined by the inherent alloy composition of the tip; if so, (a) why, (b) how does the specification comply with performance requirements rather than product specification requirements and (c) did Australian tenders meet the specification. (3) Did Loadline Australia Pty Ltd respond to the tender; if so, would the soldering system it offered be capable of doing the soldering jobs which were to be performed by the equipment sought in the tender; if not, why not; if so, did the tender exclude the type of soldering system offered by Loadline and if so, why.3302Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The equipment is used during diagnosis and fault finding of aircraft component circuit boards prior to the board being rebuilt and hermetically sealed in the Micro Miniature Component repair laboratory.(2) Yes.(a) Microprocessor design allows simple and inexpensive upgrading through reprogramming of the Read Only Memory (ROM) as opposed to analogue systems which generally require the replacement of the controller, which is the major cost of the system. In addition, microprocessor control allows for features such as:(i) temperature off-set for different tip temperature profiles;(ii) temperature idle which drastically extends iron and tip life, hence reducing life cycle cost;(iii) more accurate control of temperature over a wider range, as the thermocouple characteristics, which are non linear, are stored in the ROM.(b) Prior to drafting the specification for this procurement an extensive review of industry and international Defence capability was undertaken. The review identified a need for a solder station that would provide the same level of control and quality required in the Micro Miniature Component Repair laboratories, without the associated accessories. The identified capability reduces the likelihood of waste through heat damage to boards and components during the diagnosis and fault finding procedures. It was determined that a performance specification did not guarantee that the identified capability would be delivered therefore a technical specification was seen as the best option in this case.(c) Offers of technically compliant Australian made equipment were received.(3) Loadline Australia Pty Ltd did respond to the tender. The equipment offered by Loadline Australia Pty Ltd represented the same generation of analogue equipment that was to be replaced and did not provide the capabilities sought to reduce the potential for heat damage to circuit boards. The aim of this tender was to provide a unit that would give the user greater control during the diagnosis and fault finding procedures than could be provided by the current generation of equipment. The tender excluded the type of equipment offered by Loadline Australia Pty Ltd because it could not provide the additional capability sought.3302(Question No. 2607)26073302Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Can Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cadets receive credits for their studies at ADFA when they leave the ADF and transfer to another tertiary institution; if so, under what circumstances.(2) Is she able to say whether some Australian tertiary institutions do not recognise ADFA's undergraduate subjects; if so, (a) which institutions and (b) why are the subjects not recognised.(3) Does the Department of Defence provide assistance to cadets who resign from ADFA and wish to complete their tertiary studies at another Australian tertiary institution; if so, what assistance.3302Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Cadets leaving ADFA, having partially completed a degree, may apply for admission to another (civilian) tertiary institution. It is the prerogative of the admitting institution to determine the amount of credit to be granted.(2) The University College at ADFA is not aware of any institution refusing credit for mainstream subjects in equivalent degree courses. If a cadet was seeking entry to a different course, for example, architecture, after taking arts subjects at the University College, some of the subjects completed at ADFA may not be credited as they would not be relevant to the new degree. The University of New South Wales has a policy of requiring all students to complete general education subjects in their degree, amounting to the equivalent of one first year subject. These are subjects outside the discipline of the degree, for example, humanities subjects in an engineering degree. In some circumstances other tertiary institutions may decide not to grant credit for general education subjects.(3) Cadets who resign from ADFA but remain in the ADF may be provided with education assistance under one of the ADF Education Assistance Schemes, to complete tertiary studies at tertiary institutions around Australia, dependent on Service requirements and degree programs. Cadets who resign from the ADF do not receive any further education assistance to complete tertiary studies. 3303(Question No. 2608)26083303Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the duration of courses run by the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies (ACDSS) and the Joint Staff College (JSSC) been reduced from 12 months to 6; if so, why.(2) What priority is given to the participation of officers from other regional forces in ACDSS and JSSC programs.(3) What impact will reduced course arrangements have on regional participation.3303Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (2) and (3) As part of the implementation of the Defence Reform Program, the Chief of the Defence Force has directed that a new higher Defence course for senior officers, to replace the JSSC and the ACDSS courses, be developed. Studies to support this are underway. Decisions on course structure, curriculum, and the composition of the student body will be made in due course but we will continue to offer places to officers from countries in our region.3303(Question No. 2609)26093303McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Is he able to say to which international (a) organisations and (b) instruments the UK has become party since the election of the Blair Government and on what dates.3303Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).(b) A list of instruments to which the United Kingdom has signed or to which it has become bound, following the election of the Blair Government in May 1997, is attached.LIST OF TREATIES TO WHICH THE UK HAS BECOME BOUND SINCE 01.05.95Amendment to Article 43, paragraph (2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted at the Conference of the States Parties on 12 December 1995 12.12.1995Acceptance 17 July 1997 Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, concluded at Basel on 22 March 1989 22.09.1995Ratification 13 October 1997Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 01.02.1995Ratification 15 January 1998Entry into Force 1 May 1998Fifth Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union 14.09.1994Ratification 23 June 1997Cash-on-Delivery Agreement 14.09.1994Ratification 23 June 1997Giro Agreement 14.09.1994Ratification 23 June 1997Postal Parcels Agreement 14.09.1994Ratification 23 June 1997Universal Postal Convention 14.09.1994Ratification 23 June 1997Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, together with GA Resolution 48/263 28.07.1994Ratification 25 July 1997Entry into Force 24 August 1997Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 22.09.1992Ratification 15 July 1997Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context 25.02.1991Ratification 10 October 1997Entry into Force 8 January 1998International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, done at London 30 November 1990 30.11.1990Ratification 16 September 1997Entry into force 16 December 1997Fourth Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union 14.12.1989Ratification 23 June 1997Agreement between the Member States of the European Communities on the simplification and Modernization of Methods of Transmitting Extradition Requests 26.05.1989Ratification 26 June 1997United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 10.12.1982Accession 25 July 1997Entry into Force 24 August 1997 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12/08/1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) 12.12.1977Ratification 28 January 1998Entry into Force 28 July 1998Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12/08/1949, and relating to the Protection of victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) 12.12.1977Ratification 28 January 1998Entry into Force 28 July 1998Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations (as later amended) 16.11.1945Ratification 1 July 1997MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactionsSIGNED AT: Paris Date(s): 17:12:1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:UK SIGNATURE: 17:12:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY : MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Czech RepublicSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 16.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:UK SIGNATURE: 16:12:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY : MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of HungarySIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 16.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 16:12:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE: Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their DestructionSIGNED AT: Ottawa Date(s): 03.12.1997 to 04.12.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 03:12:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY : MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Convention between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the French Republic, and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning Scientific Personnel at the Max von Laue-Paul Langevin InstituteSIGNED AT: Paris Date(s): 17.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 17:10:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts including the Protocols with Final Act, Declarations and consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European CommunitySIGNED AT: Amsterdam Date(s): 02.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 02:10:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Second Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty of European Union, to the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 19.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONS UK SIGNATURE: 19:06:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty of European Union, on the interpretation, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of the Convention on the Service in the Member States of the European Union of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 26.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 26:05:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty of European Union on the Fight Against Corruption Involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European UnionSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 26.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 26:05:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Convention, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Service in the Member States of the European Union of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial MattersSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 26.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSUK SIGNATURE: 26:05:1997 UK RATIFICATION:MULTI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:European Charter of Local Self-GovernmentSIGNED AT: Strasbourg Date(s): 15.10.1985 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.09.1988 REF: WRR 234/4 (51) 1988UK SIGNATURE: 03:06:1997 UK RATIFICATION:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: TANZANIATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania concerning certain Commercial Debts (The United Kingdom/Tanzania Debt Agreement No. 5 (1997))SIGNED AT: Dar es Salaam Date(s): 20.01.1998 to 23.01.1998PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 23.01.1998 REF: QET 104/001/98 (1)BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and Canada on Customs Cooperation and Mutual assistance in customs mattersSIGNED AT: Ottawa Date(s): 04.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.01.1998 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Field of TransportSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 27.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 28.11.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus establishing co-operation in the field of education within the framework of the Socrates programmeSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 25.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.11.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY : EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement on telecommunications procurement between the European Community and the Republic of Korea. SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 29.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.11.1997 REF:BI—LATEFIAL SERIES/COUNTRY: TONGATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga for the Promotion and Protection of InvestmentsSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 22.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 22.10.1997 REF: UDP 68/1 1997BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MADAGASCARTITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Madagascar concerning Certain Commercial Debts (The United Kingdom/Madagascar Debt Agreement No.8 (1997))SIGNED AT: Antananarivo Date(s): 20.10.1997 to 21.10.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 21.10.1997 REF: CSQ 104/001/97 (12)BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from the Russian Federation to the European Community.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 13.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 13.10.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: ETHIOPIATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia concerning Certain Commercial Debt Agreement No.2 (1997)SIGNED AT: Addis Ababa Date(s): 19.07.1997 to 08.10.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 08.10.1997 REF: QEE 104/001/97 (5) BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: IRELAND, REPUBLIC OFTITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland establishing the Independent International Commission on DecommissioningSIGNED AT: Belfast Date(s): 26.08.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE:24:09:1997 REF: WLU 0111005197 (49)BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: YEMEN, REPUBLIC OFTITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Yemen concerning Certain Commercial Debts (The United Kingdom/Yemen Debt Agreement No.l (1997)SIGNED AT: Sanaa Date(s): 26:08:1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE:26:08:1997 REF: AWAITED MED 1.10.97.SDNBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: BURKINA FASOTITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Burkina concerning Certain Commercial Debts (The United Kingdom/Burkina Faso Debt Agreement No. 3 (1996)SIGNED AT: Abidjan and Ouagadougou Date(s): 18.04.1997 to 24.07.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 24.07.1997 REF: QWV 1041001197BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America concerning the establishment on Ascension Island of an Additional Facility to be operated on Behalf of the United States Air Force.SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 15.07.1997 to 22.07.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 22.07.1997 REF: SAA 0631003 (67) BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE.Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Government of Ukraine on trade in certain steel products.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 15.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 15.07.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on co-operation regarding the control of precursors and chemical substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 21.05.1997 to 28.05.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE:01.07.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinksADOPTED AT: Brussels Date(s): 27.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.07.1997 REF: NOT REQUIREDBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Euro-Mediterranean lnterim Association Agreement on trade and Co-operation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestine Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other partSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 24.02.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.07.1997 REF: OFFICIAL JOURNALBI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUN[TYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Russian Federation extending the Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products for the period 1 July to 30 September 1997SIGNED AT: Date(s): 07.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.07.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the Form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Malta amending the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Malta regarding textile trade to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European UnionSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 04.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.07.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: INDONESIATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia amending the Schedule annexed to the Air Services Agreement signed at Jakarta on 28 06 1973.SIGNED AT: Jakarta Date(s): 30.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 30.06.1997 REF: AWAITED AMD 09.09-1997BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: ZAMBIATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Zambia concerning Certain Commercial Debts (The United Kingdom/ Zambia Debt Agreement No. 8 (1996)SIGNED AT: Lusaka Date(s): 30.05.1997 to 05.06.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 05.06.1997 REF: CSZ 1041001/97 (12)BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY, GUYANATITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana concerning Certain Commercial Debts (United Kingdom/Guyana Debt Agreement No.4 (1996) SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 30.04.1997 to 21.05.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 21.05.1997 REF: HWY 104/001/97 (10)BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Senegal on fishing off the coast of Senegal for the period from 1 May 1997 to 30 April 2001SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 01.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Korea on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs mattersSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 10.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.05.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement on customs cooperation between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway (with Exchange of Notes)SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 10.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 01.06.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: URUGUAYTITLE:Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay concerning the Transfer of the Hut located in Hope Bay (Bahia Esperanza) in the Antarctic PeninsulaSIGNED AT: Montevideo Date(s): 08.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: 08.12.1997 REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: AUSTRALIATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Australia concerning the Investigation, Restraint and Confiscation of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Canberra Date(s): 06.02.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: COLOMBIATITLE:Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Colombia concerning Mutual Assistance in Relation to Criminal Matters {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 11.02.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: PANAMATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Panama concerning Air ServicesSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 29.10.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community (Eurotom) and the Government of the Argentine RepublicSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 11.06.1997 to 27.06.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Senegal on fishing off the coast of Senegal for the period from 1 May 1997 to 30 April 2001SIGNED AT: Date(s): 26.03.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE:01.05.1997 REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: GEORGIATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Georgia on International Road TransportSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 13.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus establishing cooperation in the field of vocational training within the framework of the Leonardo da Vinci programmeSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 25.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE;Agreement between the European Community and the State of Israel on government procurementSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 10.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus establishing cooperation in the field of youth within the framework of the third phase of the Youth for Europe programmeSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 25.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: SOUTH AFRICATITLE:Protocol to the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the Promotion and Protection of InvestmentsSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 25.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: BRAZIL TITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil on Cooperation in Science and TechnologySIGNED AT: London Date(s): 03.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and the Lao Democratic Republic {Signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Luxembourg Date(s): 29.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: HONG KONG SARTITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.SIGNED AT: Hong Kong Date(s): 05.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: CANADATITLE:Convention on Social Security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of CanadaSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 16.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: SINGAPORETITLE;Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains, with Exchange of NotesSIGNED AT: Singapore Date(s): 12.02.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: LESOTHOTITLE: Convention between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital GainsSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 29.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: CROATIATITLE.Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the Promotion and Protection of InvestmentsSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 11.03.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Antigua and Barbuda concerning the lnvestigation, Restraint and Confiscation of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: St. John's Date(s): 10.03.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the new part, and Ukraine, of the other partSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 10.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement between the European Community and the State of Israel on procurement by telecommunications operatorsSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 10.07.1997 to PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation adding to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation a protocol on mutual administrative assistance in customs matters.SIGNED AT: Luxembourg Date(s): 02.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Exchange of Letters recording the common understanding on the principles of international cooperation on research and development activities in the domain of intelligent manufacturing systems between the European Community and the United States of America, Japan, Australia, Canada and the EFTA countries of Norway and Switzerland {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 19.03.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATEFTAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol to the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, establishing a Partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other partSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 15.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the Community and the Palestine Authority relating to Article 1 of Protocol 1 and concerning imports into the Community of fresh cut flowers and flower buds falling within subheading 060310 of the Common Customs Tariff {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 24.02.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Protocol drawn up, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 41(3) of `the Europol Convention, on the Privileges and lmmunities of Europol, the members of its organs, the Deputy Directors and employees of EuropolSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 19.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Ukraine establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from Ukraine to the European Community.SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 15.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE.Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs mattersSIGNED AT: The Hague Date(s): 28.05.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY. EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement on trade in textile products between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Skopje Date(s): 16.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE.Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on trade in Textile Products {signature pre-dates May 1997} SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 31.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: SOUTH AFRICATITLE:Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic. of South Africa regarding Mutual Administrative Assistance between their Customs AdministrationsSIGNED AT: Capetown Date(s): 27.08.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: KAZAKHSTANTITLE:Protocol between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan amending the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital GainsSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 18.09.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the Form of an Exchange of Letters between the Community and the ACP States concerning Annex XL to the fourth ACP-EC Convention relating to the Joint Declaration concerning agricultural products referred to in Article 168 (2) (a) (i i)SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 12.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: HONG KONG SARTITLE-.Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China for the Surrender of Fugitive OffendersSIGNED AT: Hong Kong Date(s): 05.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTES BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (now CAB INTERNATIONAL), done at London 5 August 1982SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 11.07.1997 to: 18.07.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: : : REF :SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: : : REFBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 10.07.1997 to 28.07.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE.Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Rubber Study GroupSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 24.07.1997 to 13.08.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: BI MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1982SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 01.12.1997 to 08.12.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE PROVISIONSBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: BI MISCELLANEOUS TITLE:Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Coffee Organisation.SIGNED AT: London Date(s): 10.07.1997 to 28.07.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: MISCELLANEOUSTITLE:Exchange of Notes amending the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Sugar OrganizationSIGNED AT: London Date(s): 10.07.1997 to 15.08.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY-. EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia {signature pre-dates May 1997}SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 29.04.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESBI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing the fishing possibilities and the financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau an Fishing off the coast of Guinea-Bissau for the period 16 June 1997 to 15 June 2001SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 20.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol establishing the fishing possibilities and the financial compensation provided for in the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau on fishing off the coast of Guinea-Bissau for the period 16 June 1997 to 15 June 2001 SIGNED AT: Brussels (initialled only) Date(s): 04.06.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE:16.06.1997 REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESBI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Barbados, The Republic of the Congo, Fiji, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Republic of Cote d'lvoire, Jamaica, the Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Madagascar, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mauritius, The Republic of Suriname, Saint Christopher and Nevis, the Kingdom of Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Zambia and the Republic of Zimbabwe on the guaranteed prices for cane sugar for the 1996/97 delivery periodSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 22.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of letters between the European Community and the Republic of India an the guaranteed prices for cane sugar for the 1996/97 delivery periodSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 19.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cote d'lvoire for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2000SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 20.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial contribution for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cote d'lvoire on fishing off the coast of Cote d'lvoireSIGNED AT: initialled only Date(s): 01.07.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESBI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters on the provisional application of the Protocol establishing, for the period 6 September 1997 to 5 September 2000, the fishing rights and the financial compensation provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cape Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape VerdeSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 20.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation providedfor in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and he Republic of Cape Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape VerdeSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 20.01.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY, EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the European Community, Canada and the Russian FederationSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 15.12.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE.Additional Protocol in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Latvia and the Europe Agreement between the Communities and their Member States and the Republic of LatviaSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 12.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: 01.01.1998 REF: SEE NOTES DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESTERMINATED: wef: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on trade in textile and clothing products initialled on 15 December 1992, as last amended by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters initialled on 1 August 1995SIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 29.09.1997 to 29.10.1997PROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF:DEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI-LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Additional Protocol in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Lithuania to The Free Trade Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Lithuania and the Europe Agreement between the Communities and Their Member States and the Republic of LithuaniaSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 06.11.1997 toPROVISIONAL E i F DATE: REF: SEE NOTESDEFINITIVE E i F DATE: REF:BI—LATERAL SERIES/COUNTRY: EUROPEAN COMMUNITYTITLE:Protocol to the Agreement on Cooperation and Customs Union between theEuropean Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino consequent upon the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union with Final ActSIGNED AT: Brussels Date(s): 30.10.1997 to3314(Question No. 2611)26113314McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Did the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Hurstville City agree in principle in 1995 to a joint venture proposal for the establishment of a child care centre in the municipality of Hurstville.(2) Has the Hurstville City Council held approximately $360,000 in State and Commonwealth funds since 1995 to be applied to developing the child care centre. (3) Will the ATO proceed with the joint venture; if so, when.3314Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Commissioner of Taxation advised that although the ATO and the Hurstville City Council were able to reach agreement in principle to the construction of the centre during 1995, the ATO and the Council were finally unable to reach agreement at the contractual stage.(2) During the early stages of the joint venture the ATO was prepared in principle to commit up to $275,000 for the construction of the centre, no payments were made as contracts were not exchanged. The Commissioner is not aware of the amount of funds that may be held by the Council from State or other Commonwealth sources.(3) No.3314(Question No. 2633)26333314Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Did he hold his official 1997 Christmas party in Sydney; if so, at what venue.(2) How many persons were invited to attend.(3) Did Canberra-based public servants and ministerial staff attend; if so, how many.(4) Were Canberra-based public servants and ministerial staff required to travel to Sydney to attend the function; if so, (a) how many, (b) what was the cost to the Commonwealth of their (i) travel and (ii) overnight accommodation and (c) if the Commonwealth did not meet the costs of travel and overnight accommodation, who did.(5) What did the function cost.(6) Did the Commonwealth provide funds for the function; if so, what sum; if not, who paid for it.3314Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It has been a long standing practice for Prime Ministers to host these annual functions. I have continued this practice and chose to host last year's Christmas party at Kirribilli House.(2) Invitations were sent to all staff of my office, members of my protective security team and some other people with whom I had worked during the year.(3) and (4) Attendance at the function was not compulsory, however those Canberra-based ministerial staff and public servants who accepted the invitation travelled to Sydney at their own expense. There was no cost to the Commonwealth for their travel and accommodation.(5) I have been informed by my Department that the cost of my Christmas function was consistent with the cost of those held by my Labor predecessors.(6) In accordance with the past practices of my Labor predecessors, the Commonwealth met the total cost.3315(Question No. 2637)26373315Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a)in each case (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minster has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).3315Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) None.(2) (a) None.(2) (b) One officer of the ACCI has been re-appointed to the Australian Statistics Advisory Council (Australian Bureau of Statistics) since 2 March 1996.(3) Since 2 March 1996, approximately $1722.00 has been paid in travel costs and related expenses with respect to the appointment referred to in part 2 (b).3315(Question No. 2641)26413315Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).3315Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) Nature of Grant(1) (a) (ii) Purpose(1) (b) AmountResources Grant (NOHSC)The purpose of the grant is to provide the ACCI with the funds for servicing the interests of employers in working towards the achievements of NOHSC's goals of leading and coordinating national efforts to reduce the incidence and severity of occupational injury and disease by promoting health and safe working environments. A grant for the same purpose and value was also made to the ACTU.$200,000 (1996/97) $200,000 (1997/98)Training Grant (NOHSC)To enable the ACCI to raise OHS awareness and skills of managers, supervisors, OHS committees and representatives through the ACCI training network. A grant for the same purpose and value was also made to the ACTU.$100,000 (1996/97)(2) (a) Nil.(b) Bryan Noakes and David Frith are members of the National Occupational Health & Safety Commission. The NOHSC from time to time establishes committees to which ACCI officers or representatives may be appointed.(3) The total sum for travel costs and related expenses paid to officers or staff of ACCI for attendance at NOHSC and NOHSC committee meetings in respect of appointments made between 2 March 1996 and 27 March 1998 was $4,699.90.3316(Question No. 2648)26483316Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).3316Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) No such appointments have been made.(3) Not applicable.3316(Question No. 2658)26583316Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Has his Department commenced an $8 million advertising campaign to promote the new Employment National organisation which will replace the Commonwealth Employment Service; if so, will he provide details including documentation of the themes, rationale and objectives of the campaign and of the tendering process preceding the campaign. 3316Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department has not commenced an $8 million advertising campaign to promote Employment National as a Job Network member in the employment services market which is being introduced on 1 May 1998.I would take this opportunity to point out to the honourable member that the entire Job Network, comprising over 300 community, government and private organisations, is replacing the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES).3316(Question No. 2661)26613316Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has he sought or received written advice from the Privacy Commissioner on whether the privacy rights of the unemployed are fully protected under the new arrangements for employment services.(2) Has the Privacy Commissioner examined the matter referred to in part (1); if so, what are her conclusions.3316Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that the outsourcing of the delivery of services does not lead to a loss of privacy protection. The privacy of Australia's unemployed will be protected under the new arrangements for employment services.The new employment services will be covered by amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 contained in the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 which was passed by the House on 1 April 1998. This Bill applies the Privacy Act to contractors holding personal information for the purposes of a contract with the Commonwealth to deliver services which are outsourced by the Government. Contractors, including those delivering employment services, will be required to comply with the Information Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act.During the Second Reading Debate in the House on the Privacy Amendment Bill on 1 April 1998 Mr Melham informed the House that in the Senate, the Labor Party would seek to amend the Bill. Mr Melham declined to reveal the exact form of those amendments but it was clear that the Opposition opposes the Privacy Amendment Bill in its current form and will seek amendments to apply the Privacy Act to the entire private sector. The question of privacy laws for the private sector is a separate issue that should not be used to delay passage of the Privacy Amendment Bill and the protection that it will provide for all Australians when government services are outsourced.The Privacy Commissioner's Office has been consulted throughout the drafting of the Privacy Amendment Bill and is satisfied with its provisions.In addition, to ensure the privacy of the unemployed is protected in any interim period before the amendments commence, the Commonwealth contract with Job Network members ensures that safeguards equivalent to those under the Privacy Act are applied.The Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) consulted the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the contract, and the Privacy Commissioner was invited to comment on the related Employment Services Records Rules and the Employment Services Code of Conduct.I am advised that comments from the Privacy Commissioner's Office in relation to these matters were taken into account by DEETYA. The Privacy Commissioner concluded that the framework and safeguards for the protection of privacy under the new arrangements seemed appropriate and consistent with relevant provisions in the Privacy Act.In addition, the Privacy Commissioner noted that the proposed amendments to the Privacy Act to extend the coverage of the Privacy Act to contractors would enable an individual to complain to her about a possible interference with their privacy by contractors and extend her audit and advising role to contractors. She noted that by putting contractual arrangements for privacy in place that are consistent with relevant provisions of the Privacy Act, DEETYA and its contracted service providers would be well placed in relation to these amendments.(2) See answer to part (1).3317(Question No. 2682)26823317Dondas, Nick, MPMr Dondas5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will the Minister provide a breakdown of expenditure, including the purposes for which items of expenditure were used, for the sum of $2 743 209 listed as an operating expense for corporate services in the report of the Northern Land Council (NLC) for 1995-96.(2) Will the Minister provide similar information for 1996-97.(3) Was there a corporate services outlay in 1994-95; if not, why not. (4) What sum has been allocated for corporate services in 1997-98.(5) Will the Minister provide a breakdown of expenditure for the sums of (a) $515 049 for 1995-96 and (b) $1 123 747 for 1994-95 listed in respective NLC reports as an operating expense for legal services.(6) How many lawyers are on the permanent staff of the Northern Land Council.(7) What was the outlay for legal expenses in 1996-97.(8) What sum has been allocated by the NLC for legal expenses in 1997-98.(9) What was the at-cost vale of motor vehicles held by the NLC in 1996-97.(10) Will the Minister provide a complete inventory of motor vehicles held by the NLC and to whom they are registered.(11) What daily rate of travel allowance is payable to the (a) Chairman, (b) Director, (c) executive and (d) staff of the NLC.(12) Are consultants to the NLC entitled to travel allowance; if so, at what daily rate.(13) What was the purpose of the Canada trip for which an outlay of $9000 was listed in the NLC's report for 1995-96.(14) What was the purpose of the trip.(15) Who went on the trip.(16) Of what duration was the trip.(17) What daily travel allowance was payable to those who went on the trip.(18) Did members of the NLC take overseas trips in 1996-97; if so, in each case (a) what was the destination, (b) who went, (c) for what purpose and (d) what was the cost.(19) What was the purpose of the outlays of (a) $400 listed as Geneva and (b) $432 928 listed as Mabo-native title in the NLC's report for 1995-96 and were there expenditures on each item in 1996-97; if so, in each case, (i) what sum and (ii) for what purpose.(20) What is the annual cost of the full-time Kakadu Board executive/secretary and which organisation is responsible for funding the position.(21) What sum has been spent on the position since its establishment in June 1995.(22) What portion of the sum referred to in part (21) was provided by the NLC.(23) What were the establishment costs of the position and what portion was borne by the NLC.(24) What are the ongoing costs of the position, including salary, administrative costs, camping allowance, travel allowance and mobile phone payments for (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97 and (d) 1997-98.(25) What was the membership of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee which was involved in drafting a submission for the Kakadu Board of Management and does the committee still exist.(26) What sum did the NLC spend on the committee, including salaries, administrative costs and camping and travel allowances.(27) What sum did the NLC spend on consultants in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98.(28) When and for what purpose was each consultant engaged.(29) What sum will the NLC spend on consultants in 1998-99.3318Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(3) The Northern Land Council outlaid funds on corporate services in 1994/95, however for purposes of financial reporting, the Northern Land Council utilised heads of expenditure at page 72 (Note 5) of its 1994/95 Annual Report, which did not disclose the aggregated costs of corporate services.(4) Within the sums under the heads of expenditure approved by the Minister for 1997/98 for the Northern Land Council, an amount of $2,953,000 is approved by the Minister for expenditure on corporate services.(5) and (6) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(7) At page 68 (note 5) of its Annual Report for 1996/97, the Northern Land Council disclosed that it had expended $982,703 on legal costs.(8) The estimate of legal expenditure by the Northern Land Council for 1997/98 is $1,305,000.(9) At page 70 (note 10) of its Annual Report for 1996/97, the Northern Land Council disclosed that it held motor vehicles at cost of $1,377,922 as at 30 June 1997.(10) and (11) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(12) Whether consultants to the Northern Land Council are entitled to travel allowance and, if so, at what daily rate, are questions for private negotiation between the Northern Land Council and each consultant. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(13) to (28) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(29) Until the Northern Land Council has submitted its estimates of expenditure bid with the Minister for 1998/99, the sum the Northern Land Council seeks to expend on consultants during that year, if any, is not known.3318(Question No. 2692)26923318Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What was the (a) Defence housing requirement and (b) shortfall against the requirement met by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) as at 31 December 1997.(2) Has the relocation of Australian Defence Force operational units been delayed since 1 January 1997 because of a housing shortfall; if so, what are the details.(3) How many dwellings owned by the DHA in (a) Townsville, (b) Ipswich and (c) Toowoomba are classified by the DHA as not being of good quality.(4) Will the DHA improve the quality of its dwellings in the locations referred to in part (3); if so, what are the details.3318Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) At 31 December 1997, the Defence Housing requirement was 21,070.(b) At 31 December 1997 the shortfall was 504. The current shortfall is 392.The Defence Housing Requirement at any time includes priority requirements and incremental desirable expansion of stock in certain locations. The extent of shortfall does not necessarily imply that operational effectiveness is impaired. The Defence Housing Requirement can change due to factors such as: unit composition changes, differences in married and single personnel numbers in particular units, families not accompanying serving personnel to new locations and changes in home ownership by Defence personnel.(2) The relocation of only one operational unit has been delayed since 1 January 1997 because of a housing shortfall. The movement of most personnel attached to 114 MCRU Unit, from Amberley to Tindal, was delayed from December 1996 to June 1997. This meant the move was in the dry and not the wet as is preferred by many. (3) The numbers of dwellings owned by the Authority and classified as not being of the quality generally provided are:(a) Townsville 475; (b) Ipswich 253; (c) Toowoomba 0.The above figures do not include dwellings no longer occupied by Defence families and in the process of being sold.(4) Yes.Townsville—Over the next two years, all the houses which are of poor quality will be refurbished or replaced by new housing.Ipswich—The poor quality housing is on-base and will be replaced by new off-base housing over the next three years.Toowoomba—Not applicable.3319(Question No. 2693)26933319Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will the Government's review of service entitlement anomalies consider service with the (a) RAAF at Ubon, Thailand, during the Vietnam War, (b) RAN with the Far East Strategic Reserve during the Malayan Emergency, (c) HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Sydney and HMAS Yarra during the Indonesian Confrontation, (d) RAN Communications Detachment in Singapore during the Malayan Emergency, (e) RAN and Army bomb and mine clearance activity in the South West Pacific between 1945 and 1956, (f) RAN minesweeping activity in and around Hong Kong after 1945 and (g) British atomic tests and subsequent clean-up and decontamination activities at the Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello Islands testing grounds.(2) Will the review consider other periods of service; if so, which periods.(3) What process and timetable will the review follow.(4) What opportunities exist for ex-service organisations and individual veterans to participate in the review.3319Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) In accordance with its pre-election commitment, the Government has conducted a Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies.The Review examined and made recommendations in relation to the eligibility for repatriation benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 of fifteen periods of past overseas service. As a result of this review, for example, Naval service with the FESR between June 1955 and May 1963 is now classified as operational (not warlike, but rendered in a prescribed area of operations). The effect of this classification is that veterans who incurred an injury or illness that was sustained during, or aggravated by their RAN service with FESR, can claim compensation in the form of a disability pension, which varies according to the level of disability, and treatment for the injury or illness under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986. Additionally, eligibility for the Defence Service Home loans has been extended to the FESR.The Government determined that other genuine anomalies brought to its attention, which are substantiated sufficiently to warrant further examination will also be reviewed. As a consequence, the following are currently under review; RAAF at Ubon, Thailand, during the Vietnam War; HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Sydney, HMAS Vampire and HMAS Yarra during the Indonesian Confrontation; RAN Communications Detachment in Singapore during the Malayan Emergency; service on the Thailand/Malaya border from 31 July 1960 to 27 May 1963; and HMS Mull of Kintyre in Singapore in 1964-65.(3) The process employed will be similar to that employed by the previous Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies. Now, as previously, no set timetable is involved.(4) Ex-service organisations and individual veterans may make submissions on these periods of service to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel if they so wish. These will be forwarded for consideration in the Review.3319(Question No. 2694)26943319Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Does the Department of Defence maintain specific listings or databases of Australian military and civilian personnel who participated in (a) major British atomic tests in Australia, (b) minor British atomic tests in Australia and (c) subsequent clean-up operations; if so, (i) how many individuals are recorded in each case and (ii) what arrangements exist for exchanging the information and similar information between the Department of Defence and the Departments of Primary Industries and Energy and Veterans' Affairs.(2) What access provisions and exclusions apply to veterans of nuclear operations who seek to obtain copies of personal information held by the Department of Defence which relates to them. (3) Is the Department of Defence involved in monitoring the mortality of Australian veterans of nuclear operations; if so, what are the details.3320Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (b) and (c) The Department of Defence does not hold specific listings or databases of Australian military and civilian personnel who participated in either major or minor British Nuclear tests in Australia. However, the Department of Defence holds details of those ex-Servicemen who, since 1991, have lodged claims for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 for service at Monte Bello and Maralinga. Comcare holds a list of claims for compensation made under the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 where that office has been notified of the claim.One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia (recommendation number 2) concerned the compilation of a `national register of nuclear veterans, Aborigines and others who may have been exposed to black mist or radiation at the tests'. In response to that recommendation, the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon Gareth Evans, stated in the Senate on 17 September 1986 that: "The Government does not consider that it is either possible or appropriate to create a new national register of the kind envisaged in Royal Commission recommendation 2" and that: "Two substantial lists of persons involved in the tests and possibly exposed to radiation already exist within my Department.Any additional information which might be obtained through a further advertising campaign or record searches is unlikely to add significantly to the existing database".(i) The Department of Defence holds records on 59 claims for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 by military personnel, for service at Monte Bello and Maralinga.(ii) There are no specific arrangements in place for exchanging information between the Department of Defence and the Departments of Primary Industries and Energy and Veterans' Affairs. Information is exchanged between organisations as the need arises.(2) Participants in the British nuclear tests are able to access their personal information held by the Department of Defence. There is no provision for excluding the release of personal information to former participants; however, third party access to personal records may be denied.(3) No. 3320(Question No. 2807)28073320Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) Which State and Territory governments have signed the memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth to establish a national public health partnership for Australia.(2) Will he provide a copy of each memorandum which has been signed.(3) Have the governments which have not signed provided the Commonwealth with their reasons for not signing; if so, what is the reason in each case.(4) Under what arrangements are the agencies which provide services in the areas covered by the memorandum operating.(5) Are the HIV/AIDS, drugs, women's health and childhood immunisation strategies operating under the memorandum still being implemented by the State and Territory governments.(6) What mechanisms are in place to monitor the implementation of the strategies referred to in part (5).3320Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) To date, the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish the National Public Health Partnership (NPHP).(2) Yes.(3) The MOU is a multilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and States and Territories to establish the NPHP. All States and Territories, with the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, are represented on the NPHP Group. New Zealand has observer status on the Group. Since the Partnership was established in December 1996, work has commenced on implementation of the work program.Although the NPHP is not a funding mechanism, the process of signing the Partnership MOU is being delayed in NSW and WA, due to the current bilateral negotiations on Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements (PHOFAs) and the Health Care Agreements. Despite the formal stance of WA and NSW, both States are represented on the NPHP Group by their Chief Health Officers, and are active participants in Partnership Working Groups and other initiatives.(4) The NPHP is an ongoing multilateral mechanism between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The Partnership is a co-ordination and collaboration mechanism for national public health activity with clearly articulated roles and responsibilities for each of the jurisdictions. The Partnership is not a funding mechanism. Work commenced on the NPHP Work Program in late 1996-97. Concurrent with, but separate to the development of the NPHP Work Program was the commencement of bilateral negotiations between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments on the PHOFAs, a new mechanism for Commonwealth funding of particular public health activities. While there are some policy links, the Partnership work and the Agreement negotiations are two separate processes.The PHOFAs are bilateral funding agreements between the Commonwealth and each State and Territory. The first Agreements are for a two year period 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Agreements enable agreed national public health priorities to be addressed while allowing the States and Territories more flexibility in allocating available resources to meet local needs and determining how the needs of specific population groups will be met.(5) Through the PHOFAs, funding is provided by the Commonwealth to assist State and Territory governments implement a number of public health priorities and strategies including, but not limited to: the National Drug Strategy; the National HIV/AIDS Strategy 1996-97 to 1998-99; the National Childhood Immunisation Strategy; the National Women's Health Policy; the National Breast Cancer Screening Policy; and the National Cervical Screening Policy.(6) The PHOFAs with the States and Territories contain performance and financial reporting requirements. The Agreements contain performance indicators tailored to reflect the targets and commitments for each State/Territory with respect to the broadbanded strategies/policies. States and Territories will report against their performance indicators on a yearly basis.A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGTo establish a National Public Health Partnership for AustraliabetweenCommonwealth of AustraliaNew South WalesVictoriaQueenslandWestern AustraliaSouth AustraliaTasmaniaNorthern TerritoryAustralian Capital Territory This Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) is made on the day of 1997BETWEENThe Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge MP on behalf of the Commonwealth of AustraliaThe Hon Dr Andrew Refshauge MLA on behalf of New South WalesThe Hon Robert Knowles MLC on behalf of VictoriaThe Hon Michael Horan MLA on behalf of QueenslandThe Hon Kevin Prince MLA on behalf of Western AustraliaThe Hon Dr Michael Armitage MP on behalf of South AustraliaThe Hon Peter McKay MLC on behalf of TasmaniaThe Hon Denis Burke MLA on behalf of Northern TerritoryMs Kate Carnell MLA on behalf of Australian Capital TerritoryPREAMBLE1. The Commonwealth and the States and Territories wish to introduce a new working arrangement to plan and coordinate national public health activities, provide a more systematic and strategic approach for addressing public health priorities and provide a vehicle through which major initiatives, new directions, and best practice can be assessed and implemented through a National Public Health Partnership.2. The proposal for a National Public Health Partnership was endorsed by Health Ministers on 4 July 1996, and was noted as a significant step in the reform of Commonwealth and State/Territory relations and establishes, for the first time a multilateral inter-governmental framework between the Commonwealth and State/Territory Health Authorities to protect and improve the health of Australians.3. This MOU and Schedules 1, 2 and 3 set out how this National Public Health Partnership will be established and operated.4. "Public health" is the organised response by society to protect and promote health, and to prevent illness, injury and disability.OBJECTIVES5. The objectives for the National Public Health Partnership are to: (a) improve the health status of Australians, in particular population groups most at risk; (b) improve collaboration in the national public health effort; (c) develop better coordination and increased sustainability of public health strategies; (d) strengthen public health infrastructure and capacity nationally; (e) facilitate the contribution of all providers of public health services, such as Local Government, public health research and education programs, and relevant agencies from the States/Territories and the Commonwealth, including the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); (f) establish two-way exchange with key professional, community, consumer, educational, and industry interests on the development of national public health priorities and strategies; and, (g) enhance the capacity of States/Territories to respond to local priorities.PRINCIPLES6. The following shared principles will underpin the implementation of this MOU: (a) each community or population sub-group should have access to strategies, services and activities which optimise their health; (b) each community or population sub-group should have access to a healthy and safe environment including clean air and water, and adequate food and housing; (c) public health efforts must proceed in partnership with non-health sectors and in collaboration with international partners; (d) a supportive legal and political environment is integral to the public health effort; (e) improvements in knowledge about current and emerging health determinants and risks are vital to effective public health efforts; (f) priority setting and decision making should be based on scientific evidence as far as possible and on criteria that are open to public scrutiny and debate; (g) optimising population health outcomes requires effective linkage between public health and health system planning; and, (h) an ongoing capacity to scan and monitor the social and environmental trends likely to impact on future health status is essential for long term planning to prevent ill health.ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTNERS 7. To give effect to the above principles and objectives the responsibilities of the Commonwealth under this MOU are to: (a) facilitate the development of national public health policy in collaboration with government, non-government, professional, and community organisations. (b) advocate at the national level for public health and build and strengthen a population health constituency with key players and with the public; (c) facilitate ongoing negotiation and agreement between Governments on national policy, planning, monitoring, reporting, programs, research, training and evaluation in public health; (d) facilitate the development of national consistency in areas where there is agreement that it is needed (e.g. policy standards, legislation and regulation, workforce competencies, environmental protection, disease prevention and outbreak control methods); (e) act as the responsible agency for specific Work Program areas as agreed; (f) foster innovation, and initially finance innovation, in population health programs, in conjunction with States/Territories; (g) conduct national programs, in a coordinated fashion with States/Territories, where the need for such programs is agreed; (h) monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of national public health strategies and programs, in collaboration with States/Territories; (i) conduct, in consultation with other partners, Australia's international responsibilities and obligations in public health; (j) through AIHW—develop and collect public health data, set standards for data quality, produce public health statistics and undertake research and analysis to inform and improve public health policy and practice; and, (k) through the NHMRC—develop timely expert advice, assess best practice in public health interventions, and stimulate strategic research in public health.8. The responsibilities of the individual States and Territoriesunder this MOU are to: (a) collaborate in national policy and strategy development and, within this framework determine State/Territory priorities, and develop strategies for implementation within their jurisdictions; (b) develop and implement State/Territory specific policy, programs and regulatory frameworks for public health; (c) foster innovation in population health programs in collaboration with the Partnership Group; (d) apply public health knowledge and skills to health system development; (e) undertake State/Territory specific intersectoral collaboration, particularly in facilitating whole of government approaches and in working with Local Government, State/Territory-based non-government organisations, and education and research institutions; (f) participate in collaborative efforts at the national level and with other States/Territories, including leading specific projects, and conducting those elements of the National Public Health Partnership which the particular State/Territory might agree to undertake; (g) act as the responsible agency for specific Work Program areas as agreed; (h) monitor and respond to public health workforce issues within a national framework for workforce development; and, (i) monitor health issues and outcomes and report on the performance of public health functions as agreed.IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PARTNERSHIP9. The National Public Health Partnership will operate through the National Public Health Partnership Group; and the Commonwealth and State and Territory Health Ministers, working through the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council (AHMAC).10.The National Public Health Partnership Group shall comprise one senior representative from: the Commonwealth, each of the States and Territories, AIHW, and the NHMRC and will be chaired, in the first instance, by the Commonwealth Chief Medical Advisor. Subsequently the Chair may be a person appointed by AHMAC from the Partnership Group;11.The National Public Health Partnership will be operationalised through a three year rolling Work Program to be implemented by the National Public Health Partnership Group.TERM, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF THE MOU12.The MOU will commence on the date it is signed by all parties, and, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, continue for a five year period.13.The National Public Health Partnership Group will work collaboratively to develop an evaluation framework for the operation of the National Public Health Partnership under the MOU. This evaluation framework will focus on the: (a) outputs achieved under the Work Program in relation to the objectives set out above; (b) adequacy of the National Public Health Partnership administrative arrangements; and, (c) necessity for amendments to this MOU. This evaluation will report to the parties in Year 3 and Year 5.14.The Parties will undertake a joint review of the operation of the National Public Health Partnership during year five of this MOU.15.This MOU may be amended at any time by an agreement in writing between the Parties.16.This MOU does not vary or affect existing rights and obligations under existing agreements between the Parties and their agencies.IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as at the day and year first written above.SIGNED for and behalf of theCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIAby the Hon Dr Michael WooldridgeMinister for Health and Family Servicesin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of NEW SOUTH WALESby the Hon Dr Andrew Refshauge MPDeputy PremierMinister for Healthin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of VICTORIAby the Hon Rob KnowlesMinister for Healthin the presence of:SIGNED for and on the behalf of QUEENSLANDby the Hon Mike HoranMLAMinister for Healthin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of WESTERN AUSTRALIAby the Hon Kevin Prince LL.B MLAMinister for Healthin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of SOUTH AUSTRALIAby the Hon Dr Michael ArmitageMinister for Healthin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of TASMANIAby the Hon Peter McKayMLCMinister for Community and Health Servicesin the presence of: SIGNED for and on behalf of NORTHERN TERRITORYby the Hon Denis G BurkeMinister for Health Servicesin the presence of:SIGNED for and on behalf of AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORYby Ms Kate CarnellMLAMinister for Health and Community Carein the presence of:SCHEDULE 1GLOSSARY OF TERMSAHMAC Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council. National Public Health Partnership GroupThe group of senior representatives from the Commonwealth, States, Territories and AIHW and NHMRC referred to in Schedule 2.The National Public Health PartnershipThe national public health policy and planning mechanism between the Parties pursuant to this MOU.Work ProgramThe Work Program referred to in Schedule 3.Public health"Public health" is the organised response by society to protect and promote health, and to prevent illness, injury and disability.The scope of public health comprises activities and processes which can be grouped into three key areas: Public Health IntelligenceGathering and analysing information about the determinants of health, the causes of ill health and the patterns and trends of health and ill health in populations. This workincludes a variety of surveillance, intelligence and research activities to monitor and identify emerging issues and potential health threats, to monitor progress towards agreed goals, and to evaluate various interventions. Public Health InterventionsDeveloping policy, setting priorities for action, developing plans, implementing and coordinating services, strategies and interventions aimed at prevention, protection and promotion of the health of the community. This ranges from strengthening community capacity to manage and reduce health risks; through investigation of disease and risk factors; through management of contemporary regulatory approaches to ensure a healthy and safe environment; through organised population wide prevention or early detection; to informing optimal planning of health services delivery. Public Health InfrastructureIdentifying infrastructure needs such as workforce, training and development, and information systems. This also involves ensuring appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks are in place.SCHEDULE 2ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PARTNERSHIPThe National Public Health Partnership Group will, subject to any directions and approvals from AHMAC, have the following roles under this MOU: (a) oversee the direction, development, implementation and review of the MOU and the agreed Work Program; (b) make recommendations to AHMAC on national priorities for public health, the Work Program, and other policy issues; (c) report to Health Ministers through AHMAC on progress against key result areas of the Work Program; (d) consult and negotiate with other relevant agencies on the development of national public health priorities, strategies and the Work Program; and, (e) establish appropriate mechanisms and working arrangements to support the implementation of the MOU and Work Program. These arrangements will include consultation mechanisms, arrangements for how members will undertake components of the Work Program, and the processes for review.The Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services will be responsible for: (a) the cost of providing secretariat assistance to the National Public Health Partnership Group, and support for the Chair and the Partnership Group; and (b) providing a representative on the National Public Health Partnership Group overseeing the MOU.Each State and Territory will be responsible for : (a) providing representatives on the National Public Health Partnership Group overseeing the MOU; and, (b) costs associated with their representative's participation in the National Public Health Partnership Group. The AIHW and NHMRC, consistent with their statutory functions and the agreed Work Program priorities, will be responsible for: (a) providing representatives on the National Public Health Partnership Group overseeing the MOU; and, (b) costs associated with their representative's participation in the National Public Health Partnership Group.The role of AHMAC will be to take decisions in relation to: (a) any directions to be given to the National Public Health Partnership Group; (b) the Work Program; (c) administrative arrangements; (d) evaluation of the framework for the National Public Health Partnership; and, (e) the appointment of the Chair of the National Public Health Partnership Group from the membership of the Group.SCHEDULE 3NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PARTNERSHIP WORK PROGRAMThe Work Program will: (a) outline the public health priorities which will be addressed over the next three years. It will include a detailed program for the forthcoming year and details of the specific projects and the agencies responsible for coordination and management of each project; (b) include, for cross-referencing, relevant work undertaken by other bodies; (c) be submitted to AHMAC and Health Ministers for approval; and, (d) be reviewed annually against specific performance criteria.PRIORITIES FOR THE WORK PROGRAMThe following national public health priority areas will form the basis for the joint development of the Work Program: (a) Improvement of public health practice by applications of techniques such as standards development, benchmarking and best practice; (b) Development of public health information systems to enable more effective national monitoring of the health of the Australian population; (c) Review, rationalisation and harmonisation, where appropriate, of public health regulatory/ legislative arrangements. (d) Development of a national public health workforce strategy to identify public health workforce development priorities capable of meeting practitioners, industry, research and public health policy needs; (e) Development of mechanisms which improve public health planning and decision making (including resource allocation); (f) Development of a national public health research and development strategy to identify public health research requirements, and their relationship to policy and practice; and, (g) Establishment of a mechanism for coordinating across current and new national public health strategies, and a systematic approach to identifying priorities.The order in which these priority areas will be dealt with under the Work Program will be recommended by the National Public Health Partnership Group and approved by AHMAC.3325(Question No. 2842)28423325Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:(1) Is it a fact that a 20 foot reefer container has a meat carriage capacity of 16 000 kgs; if not, what is the capacity.(2) Does a $100 reduction in the stevedoring rate for the container referred to in part (1) equate to a reduction of $0.00625 per kilogram of beef.3325Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Advice provided by the Australian Association of Port and Marine Authorities (AAPMA) indicates that a 20 foot reefer container has an average meat carriage capacity of 15,000 to 18,000 kilograms. The exact figure would depend, for example, on whether the meat was in packed or carcass form.(2) The price of beef in the export market is determined by a number of transport related factors only one of which is the stevedoring charge. For example, the lack of reliability as a result of delays in the arrival or departure of vessels can greatly add to the cost for shipowners which is ultimately paid for by the shipper.3325(Question No. 2843)28433325Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at the port of Brisbane.3326Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Charges for stevedoring containers by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients. They are not available for publication.In its Waterline publication, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE) uses a provisional figure of $188 per twenty-foot equivalent unit as a national average figure representing container stevedoring charges. The figure is a weighted average for several major Australian ports. The BTCE notes that "stevedoring charges vary between ports but detailed data for individual ports are not publicly available." (Waterline no. 14, footnote to Table 7).The BTCE also notes that this figure is provisional pending updating of the stevedoring charge figure using detailed survey data.3326(Question No. 2844)28443326Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at Port Botany.3326Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Charges for stevedoring containers by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients. They are not available for publication.In its Waterline publication, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE) uses a provisional figure of $188 per twenty-foot equivalent unit as a national average figure representing container stevedoring charges. The figure is a weighted average for several major Australian ports. The BTCE notes that "stevedoring charges vary between ports but detailed data for individual ports are not publicly available." (Waterline no.14, footnote to Table 7).The BTCE also notes that this figure is provisional pending updating of the stevedoring charge figure using detailed survey data. 3326(Question No. 2845)28453326Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at the port of Melbourne.3326Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Charges for stevedoring containers by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients. They are not available for publication.In its Waterline publication, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE) uses a provisional figure of $188 per twenty-foot equivalent unit as a national average figure representing container stevedoring charges. The figure is a weighted average for several major Australian ports. The BTCE notes that "stevedoring charges vary between ports but detailed data for individual ports are not publicly available. " (Waterline no. 14, footnote to Table 7).The BTCE also notes that this figure is provisional pending updating of the stevedoring charge figure using detailed survey data.3326(Question No. 2846)28463326Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at the port of Adelaide.3326Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Patrick Stevedores and P&O do not operate container terminals at the port of Adelaide. However, charges for stevedoring by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients. They are not available for publication. 3327(Question No. 2847)28473327Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What are the schedule charge rates for (a) loading on ship and (b) unloading from ship (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type on offer by (A) P&O and (B) Patrick Stevedores at the port of Fremantle.3327Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Charges for stevedoring containers by private companies are commercial in confidence and are the subject of commercial negotiation between the stevedore and its clients. They are not available for publication.In its Waterline publication, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE) uses a provisional figure of $188 per twenty-foot equivalent unit as a national average figure representing container stevedoring charges. The figure is a weighted average for several major Australian ports. The BTCE notes that "stevedoring charges vary between ports but detailed data for individual ports are not publicly available. " (Waterline no. 14, footnote to Table 7).The BTCE also notes that this figure is provisional pending updating of the stevedoring charge figure using detailed survey data.3327(Question No. 2848)28483327Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Rotterdam.3327Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Port of Rotterdam has advised my Department that the stevedoring rates for that port are negotiated in confidence between stevedores and shipping companies.3327(Question No. 2849)28493327Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Singapore3327Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Recent advice provided to my Department from the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) Corporation Limited provides the following details of stevedoring charges at that port.(a) (i) A$111; (ii) A$168.(b) (i) A$144; (ii) A$206.3327(Question No. 2850)28503327Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Felixstowe.3327Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Recent advice provided to my Department by the Port of Felixstowe Limited states that stevedoring charge rates at the port are commercially negotiated with individual shipping companies. In most cases, there is one stevedoring rate for loading or unloading a container, regardless of container size. Most stevedoring rates at the Port of Felixstowe are within the range of A$179—A$205.3327(Question No. 2851)28513327Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i)20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at Port Klang.3327Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Recent advice provided to my Department from the Klang Port Authority indicates the following stevedoring charges apply.(a) (i) A$80; (ii) A$120.(b) (i) $A80; (ii) A$120. 3328(Question No. 2852)28523328Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Antwerp.3328Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department was unable to obtain the requested information on stevedoring charges from the Port of Antwerp.3328(Question No. 2853)28533328Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Long Beach, USA.3328Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Recent advice provided to my Department by the Port of Long Beach states that stevedoring charge rates for loading or unloading containers average around A$113 per container.3328(Question No. 2854)28543328Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Is he able to say what are the (a) ship loading and (b) ship unloading charge rates for (i) 20 foot and (ii) 40 foot containers by type at the port of Yokohama.3328Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department was unable to obtain the requested information on stevedoring charges from the Port of Yokohama.3328(Question No. 2855)28553328Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:(1) How many (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers were (i) loaded and (ii) unloaded from ships at Webb Dock by Patrick Stevedores in (A) 1995-96 and (B) 1996-97.(2) How many of the containers referred to in part (1) in each period were (a) domestic, (b) export and (c) import cargo.3328Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Information relating to the operations of any individual company, in this case Patrick Stevedores, is considered commercial in confidence and is not available for publication.3328(Question No. 2856)28563328Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:What is the weight capacity of each type of (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container handled through Australian ports in the international trades.3328Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following information was provided by the Australian Association of Port and Marine Authorities (AAPMA). This information covers the vast majority of containers used on international trades to and from Australia. More detailed information on the many other container types was not available. Non-standard containers are designed for specialised cargo types and tend to be used in restricted trades.(a) A standard 20 foot container has an average loaded weight of 15-16 tonnes, with a maximum of around 21 tonnes. Some strengthened 20 foot containers can carry around 25 tonnes.(b) A standard 40 foot container has an average loaded weight of 22-23 tonnes, with a maximum of around 26 tonnes. Some newer container types can carry a weight of 30 tonnes.3328(Question No. 2857)28573328Quick, Harry, MPMr QuickAV5FranklinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:(1) How many persons are employed by the ABC in each State and Territory.(2) What is the total expenditure per annum by the ABC in each State and Territory.3328Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at 29 March 1998 the ABC had a total of 4,618 employees in the following States and Territories.ACT—103; NT—131; NSW—2418; QLD—367; SA—335; TAS—217; VIC—765; WA—282.These figures include full time, part time and casual employees.(2) The ABC does not record the information being sought in the format requested, as a significant proportion of ABC expenditure is not paid on behalf of any particular Australian State or Territory and cannot be attributed to any particular State or Territory in a meaningful way.For example, television and radio program acquisitions, copyright payments, satellite and transmissions costs, repayment of borrowings, information technology support and overseas office costs are maintained centrally.