1998-05-253817REPS352901998-05-25Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous35293529Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On this, the day before National Sorry Day and the beginning of National Reconciliation Week, it is appropriate that as elected members of the House of Representatives we acknowledge that we meet on land of which the people of the Ngunnawal tribe have been custodians for many centuries and on which the members of that tribe performed age-old ceremonies of celebration, initiation and renewal. The House acknowledges their living culture and the unique role that they and other members of the Koori people play in the life of Australia.As part of the introduction to Reconciliation Week—in response to a request made in this place by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham)—members might note that four flags are being flown at the entrance to the House of Representatives chamber. They are ranged in the order they are on the advice of Protocol. It enables the display not only of the national flag but also of the flag of the Aboriginal people and of the Torres Strait Island people.Miscellaneous35293529Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In the last sitting period, members will be aware that there have been a number of trials under way. I should advise members that trials are proceeding with respect to the acoustics of the chamber and it is hoped that in due course we will be able to achieve a level which enables us all to hear wherever we might be seated in the chamber.The fifteen chairs a side for distinguished visitors will be retained, on a trial basis, for the next sitting fortnight. They are to be made available, firstly, to distinguished visitors, if there should be any; secondly, five chairs will be reserved for senators should they wish to sit in the chamber, in addition to the chairs in the gallery above. In addition, five will be available on application for diplomats should they wish to attend. Others will be available on the basis of two per member in order of application. Those seated in the chambers will be expected to meet the normal standards expected of members of this place, both in terms of dress and in not bringing mobile phones or other acoustic equipment into the chamber.Finally, with respect to Hansard, members will note that for this sitting week Hansard are seated at the table where they were originally sited. Again, this is part of the trial process. There has been a very large sum of money spent on additional acoustic equipment for Hansard and it is hoped that, in due course, we can find a place where they can sit, perhaps not necessarily in the middle of the chamber. But, as part of the trial, they will be seated at the original Hansard table at least for this sitting week.Committees35293529352912:36:003529Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I present the committee's report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia, entitled The Asian currency crisis , together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—The report I am tabling today is a record of the proceedings of a seminar conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in March this year. This seminar assembled some of the most authoritative speakers from across Australian government departments, business and academic fields to share their views on the origins, the regional economic and political ramifications and the likely effects on Australia of the Asian currency crisis.Asia would probably prefer to forget 1997, but it was a year which will have long-term consequences. Much of the news was bad, but there was also some good news. The bad news was that the dramatic financial collapse, which began with the floating of the Thai baht in July 1997, gave rise to the deepest economic crisis since East Asia's economic boom began decades ago. The consequent economic and social damage will take billions of dollars from outside the region to repair. The reactions of governments, as they sought to meet the effects of the financial crisis, have seen marked political turmoil and, in some cases, social unrest with dramatic consequences, as we witnessed in Indonesia last week. The good news is that Asian governments have begun to confront the fact that far-reaching economic and political change is necessary if economic growth is to be restored. South Korea and Thailand responded to the economic crisis with a change of government and a new determination to undertake long-term and wide-ranging reforms. Closer to home, the departure of President Suharto has the potential to usher in a similar process of fundamental economic and political reform in Australia's nearest Asian neighbour.Deputy Prime Minister Fischer, in opening the seminar, commented upon the Australian government's response to the Asian crisis, highlighting the contribution to the IMF assistance package by Australia to Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia. Australia's contribution to those packages enjoys strong bipartisan support. Labor has also expressed strong support for increased humanitarian aid—indeed, for a comprehensive international reconstruction effort; a mini-Marshall Plan—for Indonesia, which is likely to face a severe food shortage in coming months thanks to a combination of drought, economic collapse and civil unrest.It is interesting to note that the prospects for Indonesia were covered in three of the seminar's presentations and, whilst the possible scenarios included the essence of what we have all witnessed in the past two weeks, it is fair to say that no-one was able to predict the rapid fall of President Suharto. We now, of course, face an uncertain and possibly tumultuous period in Indonesia as the new administration of President Habibie grapples with the enormous challenges of economic and political reform.If the new Indonesian government cannot rise to these challenges, great as they are, it may well prove to be short lived. For our part, we will have to wait and see. One thing is clear, however, that is, without fundamental political reform—difficult and complex though it may be—international confidence in Indonesia is unlikely to be restored and the prospects for economic recovery will remain bleak indeed. Unless the new Indonesian government can move quickly to enhance real democratic participation in that country's political processes, Indonesia may yet face another bout of civil unrest and long-term economic and social consequences of a very severe nature. The potential long-term implications for regional instability and security certainly should not be underestimated.The effectiveness of regional forums such as ASEAN and APEC was one of the issues carefully considered during the seminar. On examination of the prospects for China, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore, it is evident that, regionally, nations are divided in their views as to what to do. Subsequently, ASEAN and APEC were seen as unlikely fora for addressing the core problems of the crisis. Whilst it can be argued in APEC's case that it is not designed to address financial issues, APEC was identified during the seminar as having the best prospects of any regional organisation to address the economics and the politics of the region. That it failed to exert any real influence during the crisis should not preclude its use in the future to provide a coordinated effort by the various regional agencies to assist countries in the region to set circumstances so as to avoid the same situation occurring again.The major challenge for Australia will be to breathe some new life and purpose into APEC, to recapture some of the energy and the direction which characterised its formative years. The expansion of APEC, especially the admission of Russia, makes it all the more important that countries vitally engaged in the Asia-Pacific work to keep APEC focused on delivering outcomes of real benefit in terms of regional prosperity and security.Without the commitment of countries such as Australia to push the regional agenda forward, APEC may well quietly decline in relevance and value to become just another international talking shop. This would very clearly be to the detriment of Australia's national interests and our regional influence, and we should be working hard to forestall such a possibility. Australia will also have to think carefully about how we deal with new regional forums and processes in which there is no guaranteed place for ourselves. In this regard, Australia's continued exclusion from the Asia-Europe Summit Meeting, the ASEM process, is a very worrying precedent for our future regional engagement.The committee, in reporting its views of the seminar, chose to keep its remarks brief. In doing so, the words of the individual speakers have been allowed to stand by themselves. While individually noteworthy, these presentations collectively provide a comprehensive overview of the social, economic and political impact of the crisis not just on Australia but also on regional nations.In conclusion, can I thank the many members of the foreign affairs, academic, business and diplomatic communities who participated in the seminar, particularly the talented group of speakers who generously contributed their time to ensure its success through the quality of their presentations. I believe their efforts have contributed to the creation of a valuable reference source on the initial effects of the Asian currency crisis on Australia. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:41:003531Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I want to provide some strong bipartisan support to what the shadow foreign affairs spokesman, the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), has indicated in his comments on the The Asian currency crisis report. I will come back to some comments about APEC in a moment. At the outset, let me congratulate you, Mr Speaker, in terms of this report because in your previous role as Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade it was you who agreed that we would get best mileage in the foreign affairs, defence and trade area out of a series of seminars. This is yet another seminar, a very successful one, following on the PNG, ANZUS and Commonwealth semi nars. Whilst the importance of joint committee reports should not be belittled, I think we get a lot more out of some of these seminars. This seminar is no exception to that initiative.Let me say at the outset that this crisis not only is an Asian crisis but also has the potential to be an international crisis. If the problem is not stemmed in East Asia, then it has the potential to move into North Asia—if, indeed, it has not already in terms of some of the Japanese banks. Then it also has the potential to move across the Pacific with disastrous effects on the Americas and all that that would bring with a destabilisation of international markets—all the sorts of things that we would not want.This seminar reiterates a point that was made in a previous report by this committee entitled Australia and ASEAN: Managing Change, which talked at some length about the contagion effect, that is, the contagion effect is something which should be stemmed. I would like to quote very briefly from that report, because it does reinforce what this seminar revealed:While the regional crisis has been far more severe than earlier predicted, the prospects for a return to robust growth in the region would appear to be strong. As a number of commentators have pointed out, the fundamental features of Asia's solid growth in the recent past have not changed.It goes on:These fundamentals provide part of the foundation needed to sustain economic development and expansion. The other, more problematic, part has to be provided by the institutions ASEAN members have (or have yet to) put in place, particularly with regard to economic administration and regulation—a point that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith raised earlier. To continue:The committee recognises that while some countries in the region, particularly Singapore and (to a lesser extent) Malaysia have significantly improved their institutional infrastructure over the past twenty years, other countries have allowed institutional developments to lag behind economic expansion.The report then goes on to quote the Far Eastern Economic Review :What the region needs is to put in place a political system that places values on accountability and transparency, that controls corruption and sets up an administrative and regulatory system that is suited to the age of globalization. I am pleased to pick up the point about APEC that the opposition spokesman has raised. Members in this place may not be aware that last night the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced a number of initiatives in this area while attending the finance ministers meeting in Canada. He has announced some very substantial assistance from Australia in terms of prudential control, prudential advice and prudential education to other countries, and that has to be a step forward.He also announced that Australia would take a prominent role in a new APEC finance ministers' collaborative initiative to improve corporate governance. To that end, Australia will host a seminar oriented to bring business people together to identify governance reform needs. He said, `In the light of what we find through these early processes, we will identify ways to develop practical mutual assistance later in the life of the project.' He also made comment about increasing dialogue on the problem. He went on to say that there was widespread agreement at this meeting that the reform programs—(Time expired)12:46:003532Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—In discussing this report today, I would like to mention some of the speakers—hopefully, all of the speakers—who contributed to the seminar, because the information they gave us and their point of view was extremely valuable to the committee and, I believe, to all others of those who attended. I would like to acknowledge Dr Peter Brain, Professor David Lim, Dr Heather Smith, Dr Ross McLeod, Pamela Fayle, Max Walsh, Alan Dupont, Alan Oxley, Paul Kelly, Chris Richardson and Bill Shields. I trust that I have not left anybody out of that list as I do not think it is printed in the beginning of the report. We have all the attendees but not the speakers, and I notice that the member for Chifley (Mr Price) across the chamber is nodding at that.What came out of that seminar that was interesting to me was the question of what happened. Prior to June last year countries all over the world were praising the Asian tigers and here at home we were perhaps castigating ourselves a little that we were not quite as good as the Asian tigers in looking at the type of growth we had achieved over the last decade. They were certainly put up as countries to be emulated. Then almost overnight we saw these countries go into a financial crises. It is worth while having a look at what came out of the seminar as to what precipitated and caused such a change around and why the world was not already aware that this was going to be likely. If we look at causes, we can go back, first of all, to the 1995 devaluation in China, which made the other countries in the region less competitive than they had been. That was a minor trigger that then reacted on economies that had fundamental problems. First of all, the Thai economy was overheating. It had brought in a lot of capital. There was strong inflationary pressure. There was concern overseas at the rising current account deficit and the bad debts. With that, there was an outflow of capital from Thailand which precipitated the Thai government deciding to float the Thai baht.Instead of the effect that the Thai government had expected, which was to halt the outflow of capital, this of course brought a massive outflow of capital from Thailand. At the same time it caused the Western countries that had supplied this short-term capital to look at the other countries in the region to see that they also had problems, problems that they had been aware of but that, in what has been called casino capitalism, they had decided to ignore, because the profit was there in Asia and because partly the currencies were tied to the American dollar and that was the security that foreign investors had.The other countries were also forced to float their currencies. As a result, there was a mirroring of what happened in Thailand. The foreign investors panicked, removed their money and, as the currencies fell, more people and institutions took their investment out of these countries and we saw these massive devaluations occur. At the present, three of the countries—Thailand, Korea and Malaysia—have devalued their currencies by about a third. They are all very similar—34 per cent, 35 per cent, and 36 per cent. That will make them more competitive, especially with the changes they have made in their economy. Of course the big concern in the region and one that was suggested in the seminar but never actually broached as a possibility was what is happening in Indonesia. We have seen Indonesia's currency drop 75 per cent as a result of the capital outflows. But it comes back to the fundamental situation in Indonesia, which was not only bad debts and overgearing, which the other countries shared, but also an excess of crony capitalism. That, together with a fundamental political concern that was happening in Indonesia at the same time, caused this rolling problem that we see in that country. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into the lessons that this bears for Australia, but let me just say that it does stress the importance of having our fundamentals in order. (Time expired)12:51:003533Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In speaking on the seminar which we held into the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia, I would like to mainly focus on the effect that it will have in Australia. At present, economic growth in Australia is quite strong. If you say that the currency crisis could have come at any time, perhaps now is a fortuitous time. Although the currency crisis has taken one per cent off Australia's GDP growth, private sector demand still grew strongly last year. That is being supported by low inflation, low interest rates, continuing growth in housing and retail and also continuing growth in job creation. Since this government came to office, there have been 260,000 jobs created.The Asian downturn will affect our exports, especially in tourism, which has already been affected, and also some other services. However, exports are continuing to grow to markets like Europe, the US and even established markets like New Zealand. That will offset the decrease in exports to some extent. The impact on the Australian dollar, as other speakers have mentioned, has been quite mixed. While there has been a devaluation of something like 18 per cent against the US dollar, there has also been an appreciation against currencies like the won and the rupiah. That means that, looking at the trade weighted index, it has been hard to get the mix right in terms of what the impact will be for inflation, but overall the Reserve Bank has said that the import weighted TWI has depreciated by about eight per cent.The stronger growth in the domestic economy and also the slower growth in exports will see an increase in the current account deficit over the next year. One of the important points to make is that the increase in the current account deficit that we are going to see over the next year is different to the increases we saw in 1986 and 1989, which were largely fuelled by the domestic economy galloping away, and the response of the previous Labor government was to increase interest rates to 18 or 19 per cent. The difference now is that, while the domestic economy is strong, the current account deficit is due not to a rampant domestic economy but to external circumstances.We should recognise that Australia, as well as Singapore, has largely been seen as a safe haven during the Asian currency crisis. If you look at the things that the government has been doing, all of them have been a message to financial markets that Australia is very much moving in the right direction. At present we have control of inflation. The government has undertaken the program of fiscal consolidation where we have moved from a $10.5 billion budget deficit to a $2.7 billion budget surplus. We have greater competition now in our labour and financial markets. We are just beginning a process of corporate law reform to ensure sound corporate governance.We also had the Campbell inquiry in the early 1980s and more recently the Wallis inquiry, which are going to bring about sound prudential regulation in banks and non-banking financial institutions and transparency in financial reporting.We should think about some of the goals that Australia should have in this area. Australians now have the potential to be the greatest owners of shares in the world. Apparently we are No. 2. If Telstra is privatised we could have the highest number of Australians directly involved in the share market. The Wallis reforms, the process of corporate law reform and addressing issues like stamp duty and financial institutions duty and the BAD tax should be able to give Australia the ability to become the No. 2 financial centre in the Asia-Pacific, after Tokyo.Moving to some of the comments that were made during the seminar which relate to the budget repair job that this government has done, Max Walsh made the comment:I have no doubt that . . . we would have come under greater pressure had we been running a larger fiscal deficit than we have been running. I think that is without any doubt.He is referring to the pressure that might have come on the Australian dollar. Chris Richardson's comment was:The 1996-7 budget and the considerable tightening that it saw at the time did help fireproof Australia against the financial market contagion.I have talked about the current account. There is one other issue that I think needs to be addressed and that is the issue of industry policy. The Australian Labor Party has based its industry policy on the interventionist MITI model of Japan. (Time expired)12:56:003534Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to firstly acknowledge the contribution of the former Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, as my friend did opposite, in developing the role of seminars as a useful adjunct, I believe, to committee inquiries. I certainly believe that this seminar was perhaps amongst the more important ones that the joint committee has held.It is funny how two people can go to a seminar and perhaps reach different conclusions on the impact of the Asian currency crisis. I must say that my response was that yes, Australia is doing relatively well as far as the impact of the Asian currency crisis is concerned but we are far from being fireproofed from it. As other speakers have pointed out, it was an attack on the Thai baht back in July 1997 that really started the Asian meltdown. Of course, the three countries that have been so badly affected have been Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia.I think one of the important lessons I got out of the seminar was that these economies, firstly, are going to take some time to readjust. The way they are going to get out of their particular problems is certainly through some structural changes in the economy but most importantly through exports. So Australia is in an important position to the extent to which we allow these economies to export into Australia. The critical economy is, of course, the United States of America. Given the protectionist nature of Congress over there, it is a bit of a worry whether or not these countries are going to be sufficiently able to export into the United States to manage their way out of the current crisis.Another member mentioned the devaluation of the Chinese currency. I think the jury is out still as to whether or not China itself will at some point devalue its currency. Should it do that, of course, it will place enormous pressure—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Kingsford-Smith wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?3534Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.3534353413:00:003534Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled Saving our census and preserving our history, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—As Australians, we are familiar with the practice of filling in a census form. Holding a census is an event which now takes place every five years. The last census was conducted in 1996, and the next census is scheduled to be held in 2001—a year of reflection, for many of us, on our lives and history. 2001 is the first year of the new millennium and the year in which we celebrate the centenary of Federation in Australia.Censuses are conducted on behalf of the Commonwealth government by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The main purpose of the census is to accurately measure the number of people in Australia on census night to provide a reliable basis from which to estimate the population of each state and territory. The information from the census is used to produce statistical data for use by governments, academics, industry, businesses and private individuals. Following each census, the practice since 1971 has been to destroy the forms once all the statistical data has been extracted and the forms are no longer needed for processing.The principal issue before the committee in this inquiry was whether the name-identified census information should continue to be destroyed or whether it should be retained and made available for possible future research use. In drawing together all the arguments, committee members agree that saving name-identified census records—with appropriate safeguards—rather than destroying them would make a significant contribution towards preserving Australia's history. In the words of one witness, the census is simply `too valuable to throw away'.The committee recommends that name-identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained. The committee also recommends that these records be closed for a period of 99 years and that no researcher have access to the records until they are made available in the 100th year. It is to be a stated purpose of the census that name-identified information be available for possible future research. As a safeguard, the committee also recommends that legislation be implemented to give effect to these recommendations. As a further safeguard, only officers of the National Archives of Australia or the Australian Bureau of Statistics are to process or handle census information.The committee has thoroughly considered the arguments presented to it on a range of issues, including the effect on data quality of retaining census forms, privacy concerns of individuals, the value of census records on various research and the costs of retention. The committee found that there are passionate advocates on each side of the debate. On the one hand, the committee has heard that retaining name-identified census information and liberalising the policy on access to census data would inevitably lead to a devaluation in the currency of the census.The principal proponent against the retention and possible future use of census information was the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The ABS argued against the suggested changes to the current policy on the grounds that the retention of census information would have an adverse impact on data quality. On this view, an adverse impact on data quality would occur if census information were retained. Persons would be concerned about the confidentiality of their information because of possible adverse consequences for their privacy. These concerns would lead people to be reluctant to provide accurate and full answers to the questions asked on the census forms. ABS believes that this would set in train a loss of trust in the data collection of ABS in general, with consequent adverse impacts on the whole of the data collections of the ABS.On the other hand, many researchers argued in favour of retaining name-identified census information for possible future use by researchers after a significant period of time. The committee heard evidence that similar census records which had been kept and released in other countries after a significant period of time had proven to be most valuable resources to researchers undertaking historical research. Many claims were made about the usefulness of name-identified census records for researchers in fields such as demography, sociology, history, genealogy, epidemiology and other medical fields.The committee was not persuaded that general immediate access should be provided for any research purpose. However, it is persuaded that a period of 99 years in which the data is not available generally provides adequate safeguards in the circumstances. The committee believes that saving the census for future research—with appropriate safeguards—will make a very valuable contribution to preserving Australia's history for future generations.In conclusion, I thank the members of the committee for their contributions to this inquiry. I also thank the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees, and the adviser on the reference, Cathy Barber, for their efforts. I commend this report to the House. (Time expired)13:05:003536McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I support the recommendation for adoption of this report made by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews). At the outset, what I should do appropriately is congratulate the member for Cook, Stephen Mutch. This is an example of what a lowly backbencher can achieve. The member for Cook was instrumental about a year ago in advocating that census records should be retained, and he lobbied hard, as I understand it, to have the issue referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. While I regarded his views initially as being those of a well-meaning eccentric, after listening to the arguments, he persuaded all members of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and this is a unanimous report. I hope that any preselection difficulties he may have are resolved. While I am hopeful that Labor will win extra seats, I doubt in any circumstances that we will win the seat of Cook. Hence, the member for Cook may be back here, hopefully, to see the legislation to carry out his wishes go through.In considering the arguments for and against, the committee was very mindful of the views of the Australian Bureau of Statistics as to the effect retaining census details may have on the accuracy of data. We are all mindful of the tremendous job done by the bureau in terms of collecting literally the statistics of the Australian population as it is. They have relevance not only to the electoral process but also to the allocation of resources, whether it is for social security, migrant education resources or whatever it may be. The ABS performs a very valuable function and does it very well and it is among the world's leaders, so we were mindful of anything that would affect the data quality.But, having considered the views and acknowledged that there was at least a possibility of data quality being affected, the committee said, `What can we do to settle that down, to alleviate those concerns?' We have said that the 99-year closed period will clearly be something that should put any legitimate concerns at ease. Even then, we have suggested that there be a public education program to talk about the benefit of retaining this census information. As the chairman of the committee indicated, it is simply too valuable to be lost.For instance, the census information currently provides snapshots of about 250 households in each census district, and that gives some picture for future researchers as to what happens over time to those 250 houses. But, as historians have said, to date our history tends to be a history of famous people rather than of ordinary people, of ordinary citizens. We think that including the names of people in the picture and facilitating research based on what happened to actual citizens will change the nature of history; it will give a history of people's lives. Not only that; it will contribute to social research.It was put to us, for instance, that it would be good to find out what happened to country towns who lost so many young men in the First World War. While we know that the towns either survived or did not survive, we do not know what happened to the families who were left behind and who lost those young men in the war. Equally, it will be very difficult to predict what happens as a result of economic consequences, such as the closure of the Newcastle steelworks, unless we are able to see what happens to actual families, whether there will be institutional or intergenerational poverty handed down because of those events, which may motivate future governments to address these sorts of circumstances more intensely.So, yes, while on the one hand there were privacy issues that we had to address, we think the 99-year preclusion is going to satisfy those concerns. On the other hand, there are very significant benefits that can be obtained not only by the social historian but also in terms of medical research, and that is discussed in the context of the report. So we on this side of the House have no hesitation in recommending the report as something of benefit to the Australian society. (Time expired)13:10:003537Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—I thank the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland) for his kind words. It is with a great deal of pleasure and some pride of ownership that I speak to the tabling of this report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Saving our census and preserving our history . It should be noted that the committee, which consists of 14 members from both sides of the House, was unanimous in the view that the Australian census, which is conducted every five years, with the next census to be conducted in our Federation centenary year of 2001, should be preserved for the benefit of future Australians.Many Australians might not even be aware that, at present, when the census is conducted, at considerable cost, only the statistical data extracted is retained and the name identified information contained on the household form is destroyed. Committee members recommend that this practice, which effectively pulps an irreplaceable historical resource, should end. The committee recommends that named-identified data from each census collection should be securely archived for a period of 99 years. After that, it can be released generally for research purposes.While there is no doubt that the name-identified information collected by the Bureau of Statistics would be an invaluable resource from the time it is collected, committee members felt that the long embargo period is required to put beyond any doubt concerns that the confidentiality of name-identified information might be compromised. Other culturally comparable countries have managed to keep their census data and still achieve high levels of response and accuracy, as a chart in the report comprehensively details.In answer to the question, `If these countries can do it, why can't we?' the response of the Australian Bureau of Statistics was that our culture is just so different and, in addition, that it would be impossible to unbundle the effects of the conditioning process pursued by the ABS in Australia for destruction. Unfortunately, the response of the Australian Bureau of Statistics to this inquiry was negative and, in essence, uncompromising. It did not produce a single piece of credible evidence to support its contention that the retention of name-identified data would herald the end of the world as we now know it. To the contrary, the ABS commissioned two self-serving surveys which were viewed with incredulity by committee members and the results of which were called into question by Professor David Sless of the Communications Research Institute of Australia.Unfortunately, while there is no question that the capacity is there, I have come to the conclusion that the ABS, under its present leadership, would not be able to provide professionally detached and independent advice to the government on the manner in which retention can be achieved without compromising the integrity of the census. Quite simply, the will is not there, nor the willing cooperation that would be required. I say this with regret because I do not believe that the laudable objective of retention can be achieved without the goodwill and support of senior officers of the ABS and, failing a road to Damascus type conversion, this goodwill and support is absent.It should be noted that a former deputy statistician of the ABS Dr Richard Madden, who appeared before the committee in his capacity as Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as well as noting generously that Canada has always been regarded as having the best statistical system in the world—and Canada retains its census—submitted that a retention protocol for research purposes be developed by the ABS and interested parties. Although he also submitted that the name-identified information should never be released, he noted that Australian practice and expectations are key to forming this conclusion, including the ABS research on Australian attitudes to census form release. Like many other witnesses, he seemed prepared to take the ABS on trust with respect to this conclusion. However, it seems to me and to the other members of the committee that there is no real difference between arguing for retention never to be released and retention not to be released for 99 years.I first became interested in this topic many years ago when I visited the eminent genealogist Nick Vine Hall, who was then the Director of the Society of Australian Genealogists. His crusading zeal infected me with the desire to put an end to this senseless census destruction which, no matter how you look at it, is an act of historical vandalism. In my first speech, I noted my intention to pursue this issue and, subsequently, moved a private member's motion in October 1996 calling for an inquiry. I thank the Treasurer (Mr Costello) for providing this reference and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for generously allowing a contentious issue to be canvassed. In conclusion, I would like to place on record my thanks to the committee secretariat, in particular the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.15 p.m., in accordance with standing order 102C the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded. Does the member for Menzies wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?HK5Mutch, Stephen, MPMr ANDREWS—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills3538r5203538Bill presented by Mr Rocher.13:16:003538Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—The Financial Accountability (Commonwealth Support of Non-Public Sector Bodies) Bill 1998 calls for greater accountability and more timely scrutiny. If enacted, these provisions will oblige governments providing assistance valued at $50,000 or more to a private sector enterprise to table details of the agreement in the parliament within seven days of the deal being formalised. The bill is about the accountability of the executive to the parliament and through the parliament to the Australian people. As the title suggests, my bill deals with the provision of government support to private sector bodies. With this bill, I aim to ensure that the parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the terms of arrangements under which the Commonwealth government provides financial and other support to non-public sector bodies.When the Commonwealth provides support to a non-public sector body it takes on costs and risks on behalf of Australian taxpayers. Accordingly, the executive government should open up the extent of that risk to parliamentary scrutiny. Further, the government should ensure that, at the very least, the taxpayer receives a return in exchange for the risk the government is taking with the taxpayer's money. At worst, the failure of a non-public sector body that is in receipt of Commonwealth financial support may expose the government, and hence taxpayers, to a public sector loss.The first aim of the bill is to ensure that all details of proposed government support are placed before the parliament to allow scrutiny in a timely way. Second, it aims to ensure that government support is given only in cases where the costs and risks to the support are open to scrutiny, where the support is able to be met from existing financial resources, and where it is capable of yielding measurable advantages to the Commonwealth.The Commonwealth government has an interest in and a responsibility for encouraging private sector investment in its many forms in Australia as it sees fit from time to time. This issue came to prominence in my home state of Western Australia following the so-called WA Inc. years of the Burke-Dowding Labor government in the 1980s. The 1989 Burt commission on accountability reported on events of that period. Amongst other things, the report said:The vital issue is not the activities in which the government engages, but the conditions under which it engages in them. The public is entitled to insist that government be conducted openly and that it be, and be seen to be, accountable for its action. Nowhere is the need for this more apparent than when it undertakes initiatives which put public funds and resources at risk.I do not seek to restrict the government from giving financial assistance—that may or may not be a legitimate role of the executive, depending on the circumstances of the day—but this bill will emphasise parliament's legitimate role by entrenching in law the practice that, within 28 days of a minister or his or her delegate signing an agreement of assistance, details must be tabled in both Houses.There is also a role for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Auditor-General in this. Assistance or government support is defined in the bill as any equity, loan, guarantee, contract, grant, subsidy, concession, or any use of Commonwealth property, services or infrastructure given to a non-public sector enterprise, with that assistance being valued at $50,000 or more.The Howard government showed that it supports the concept of greater transparency in government and public account keeping when it introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill which, I should mention, also received the support of the Labor Party. It would, therefore, be entirely appropriate for both the major parties to support the intent of this bill. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday.Private Members' Business3539353913:21:003539Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I move:That this House calls upon the Government to replace its existing consulate in Zagreb with an Australian Embassy to the Republic of Croatia as soon as possible.This motion calls on the Australian government to replace its existing consulate service in Zagreb with an embassy to the Republic of Croatia as soon as possible. Members of this House know my long and continued commitment to getting Australia to take the necessary action to establish an Australian embassy in the Republic of Croatia. My intention in moving this motion today is to give the coalition government the opportunity both to do the right thing by Australian citizens and their families who are directly disadvantaged by the current lack of an Australian embassy in Zagreb and to do the smart thing in terms of trade opportunities which are certain to be generated if we do and which are equally certain to be forgone if we do not.The government of Australia has certain obligations to ensure that the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens are protected. This is a fundamental duty that is applicable regardless of which party grouping is in power. Government is also obliged to act in ways which are demonstrably in the national interest rather than against it. I contend that it is quite clear to any sensible observer that if this government is to follow these two fundamental duties to its citizens it must establish an Australian embassy in Zagreb as soon as possible.As I have said before, at present there is a significant number of Australian citizens who have chosen to reside in Croatia. Estimates put their number at 10,000. Many reside there for business reasons while others want to spend time with relatives now that the veil of Yugoslav communist occupation has been lifted. In any case, these people have a real need for the full range of services that an embassy can provide Australians overseas, and a right to expect it.For these Australians, who comprise one of the most substantial expatriate Australian populations anywhere in the world, getting access to embassy services is not easy. Currently, a part-time consulate operates limited services in Zagreb. A full service is operated from Vienna, over 400 kilometres away. Travel to Vienna is a significant burden in time and cost which is made more confusing for many who have difficulty in understanding German, the principal language in Austria.As one would expect, Australian citizens who have relatives in Croatia, and Croatians who have relatives in Australia, are engaged in a significant program of temporary family reunification across the world. Maintenance of family ties is important, but it is made increasingly difficult by the lack of full, formal Australian embassy representation in Zagreb. Visa applications or problems have to be dealt with at a further distance across a third international frontier. As we are talking about a substantial number of people, clearly well in excess of the 10,000 Australians residing in Croatia, the chances of difficulties being experienced are significantly magnified.This family based travel is the basis of a growing and potentially profitable tourism industry that Australian tourism cannot afford to ignore. With the current weakness of our own dollar, and the more dramatic currency weaknesses in the countries we have become increasingly dependent upon in our region, the opportunity to develop a market in Croatia and its vicinity cannot be ignored. But tourism, although valuable in its potential, is not the only reward which would stem more easily from the establishment of an embassy in Croatia. Australian trade has increasingly focused on Asia in recent years, and some commentators have warned against too heavy a bias against other markets. The Asian crisis has brought this home to us and, if we are to prosper, we need to supplement our diminished Asian markets with new ones.Perhaps the most promising region outside of our own is in central and southern Europe. Australia has the advantage that Croatia, with its unique and strategic position, is a gateway to this potential. Equally, Australians of Croatian origin with their language skills and family connections are also a gateway for our wider business community to take advantage of these opportunities. If we do not, others will and this central European opportunity will be lost.There is another message to be sent to people in Australia, to people in our region, to people in Europe and to people in the rest of the world: Australians do not support autocratic and despotic regimes. We do not support leaders who go around killing hundreds or thousands of their citizens. If we want action behind those sentiments, we need to question why we choose to maintain our major diplomatic post in the region in Belgrade while denying an embassy in the country of the democratically elected government of Croatia. This is a message that will not be lost on people.Australians listened to the government when it said it could not afford a new embassy due to the need for financial restraint. The government has been successful in bringing us back towards surplus, people of Croatian decent are interwoven at every level of our community and have borne the pain caused by financial cutbacks and restraint like other Australians. What they see now, though, are changed circumstances where we can afford an embassy in Zagreb. We must invest in such a level of representation to give us access to greatly improved trade opportunities in southern and central Europe. I believe the question is not whether we can afford an embassy in Zagreb but whether we can afford not to establish one. I call on the government to invest a fraction of the budget surplus to do the right thing by our citizens and to do the smart thing for Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?13:26:003540Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. The previous speaker, the member for Moore (Mr Filing), with my colleague the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), have on the public record very much been consistent campaigners on the rights of Croatia. I note that in the last fortnight the member for Calwell has had discussions with Foreign Minister Granic and, due to his activities in this matter and those of his colleague, was presented with a form of recognition by the Croatian government.Obviously, regardless of who is in power in this country, we just cannot afford to have embassies in every nation in Europe. Quite frankly, on balance, the right decision has probably been made in re-emphasising Australia's presence in Asia for trade reasons. I have to say that one of the other issues in Europe is the continued absence of an embassy in the Ukraine, which has 50 million people. If we are looking essentially at the numbers of people involved, that is certainly a significant country which should be looked at.However, I think there are very fundamental reasons for Croatia being looked at very seriously. Firstly, of course, we have a significant Croatian diaspora in Australia. The 1996 census estimated that approximately 47,000 people in Australia were born in Croatia, let alone their offspring. My own electorate of Reid, whilst not having the numbers of Fowler in western Sydney, has about 1,000 of those people concentrated in the suburb of Berala and is typical of a number of electorates in this country.Secondly, we should note that over the last decade or so—since Croatia had a poll in May 1991 which showed 94 per cent support for a loose federation and then the movement by June of that year towards Slovenia and Croatia making unilateral declarations of independence—there has been an increasing recognition of the pan-Serbian desires of the regime in Belgrade. I think, regardless of how capable our diplomats are or how genuine they are in trying to get a balance, they tend to depend upon local information, they tend to be affected by the society around them and they tend to get narrow forms of information sources.If we look at the current situation—it is very difficult to find a solution to it—the degree to which the so-called Yugoslavian government has intervened very heavily against the Albanian minority in Kosovo is another reason why we should actually have a variety of forms of information in regard to this region. Of course, it is a region where the UN has had to actively intervene, and Europe has also needed to be involved, because of the friction and the obvious reality that it is not going to disappear. Every day of the week we hear of conflicts in villages in relation to the municipal authorities, the voting rights of the minorities or one or other of these countries refusing the nationals of another country the right to go back to their houses, or we see houses being burned down in these towns and villages. I think we need a presence so that we know what is going on and we are able to play a useful role as a result of these fast-changing events. Of course, in the last few weeks there has been conflict over the presidency of Yugoslavia as well.As the previous speaker said, there are also very fundamental trade reasons why we should have this presence in southern and eastern Europe. Not only is it a question of distance from Vienna; the reality is that the embassy in Vienna is dealing with a number of other migration matters further east in Europe. That embassy is required by this country to undertake a number of international roles because of the presence of the UN and other authorities there. Once again, it is very questionable that people should have to travel that distance. The member for Moore indicated that 10,000 Australian Croatians have moved back to Croatia and that they need a service. There is also the acknowledgment that we should play a trade role.I am not here to be an apologist for the Croatian regime. I think there is also a very real need for Australia to be there in regard to the question of human rights in Croatia. Whilst we talk about the Serbian or Yugoslav invasion of parts of the former Yugoslavia, there are questions about Croatia's commitment to democracy. There have been concerns raised at various stages about the attempt to close down independent radio stations and about restrictions on alternative publications. In the case of one presidential election, there were very serious questions raised by the overseeing European authorities. I am not saying that they are alone in this, but there is a very evident degree of patronage in regard to the state institutions and the family of the current president. I think there are fundamental reasons for this embassy. (Time expired)13:31:003542Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I am pleased to speak on this motion which has been moved by the member for Moore (Mr Filing). I acknowledge his very sincere and longstanding interest in this area. I seem to recall that when he and I used to sit on the same side of the chamber a long time ago he demonstrated an interest and was very active in this area. He certainly has a longstanding interest and I most sincerely acknowledge that.The difficulty with the motion today is that he is making a plea for representation in a particular location. There are many places around the world where, in an ideal situation, the government would like to have an embassy or upgrade its representation in one way or another. There are plenty of places that have good claims. There is no question that a whole range of issues have been mentioned about the former Yugoslavia and Croatia. The economic viability, the number of people, the human rights issues and so on are all good arguments. We have all been appalled by what has happened in that part of the world. Like every member in this chamber, I have met former residents of that part of the world who are now Australian citizens in my own electorate. We all have great sympathy for what has happened. But the reality of life, unfortunately, has to take over when you are in government and you are faced with the responsibilities and realities of funding and so on.The government's position is that it is aware, and has been for some time, of the concerns of the Croatian community in Australia about our representation in Croatia. It is true that the Australian government does not have an embassy in Zagreb, but we are represented through a consulate which was established in 1992. The consulate is headed by an honorary consul, Dr Goroslav Keller. The government's view is that Dr Keller provides a very effective consular service to the growing Australian community in Croatia. He also helps to promote Australia's broad commercial and other bilateral interests. The Australian embassy in Vienna has responsibility, as we have already heard, for covering all Australian interests in Croatia and also maintains a regular program of visits to Croatia. We take full advantage of those visits to maintain close links with relevant government, private sector and NGO bodies as well as expatriate Australians.In the prevailing climate of restraint, the government considers that the representation of Australian interests in Croatia, through our embassy in Vienna and our honorary consul in Zagreb, is both appropriate and effective. I will make the point that this is a continuation of policies of the previous government. Of course we would like to have an embassy in Zagreb, but the reality is that you cannot have embassies and those resources in every place around the world that you would like to—there are some posts that look after something like seven different countries. There are a lot of places where, in order to make sure that we have appropriate representation, we have shared arrangements—for example, Canada. And we are looking at further rationalisation in that respect.The bottom line is that the costs are a real problem. We may have a budget surplus, but if we spent it on every bid that everybody wanted we would not have a budget surplus for long. There are financially and economically difficult times ahead for the country. We need to maintain that surplus for the foreseeable future to make sure that we do not go down the tubes financially, as we did under the previous government. Cost is a real, limiting constraint. Therefore, I submit to the House that, in the circumstances, the government's position is reasonable and I support it.13:35:003542Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise to support very strongly the motion moved by the member for Filing (Mr Moore). It calls for the government—and I remind the previous speaker, the member for Aston (Mr Nugent) of this—to replace its existing consulate in Zagreb with an Australian embassy to the Republic of Croatia as soon as possible. I think that is a point that has to be emphasised. We already have an established consulate but, unfortunately, because of the volume of work, the consulate now is not able to function as expeditiously as it would like to. This is why the time has come for this government to acknowledge that we now require this consulate to be upgraded to an embassy.In supporting the motion, we have to recollect that prior to that very tragic and bitter war that gripped parts of the former Yugoslavia during the earlier part of this decade—and still simmers in part of that region—the Australian embassies in Belgrade and Vienna were sufficient to provide that full range of services to the people of the region. However, in the aftermath of that conflict and the subsequent declarations of independence of a number of nations—including Croatia—the current arrangements are certainly no longer acceptable for a number of reasons.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Hear, hear!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I thank the member for Moore. I agree with his motion most sincerely. It is the common rule that Australian embassies are located not only in areas of pronounced importance to this country but also to serve the regions that have large expatriate populations which have settled here in Australia. With this in mind, the distinct lack of an Australian embassy in Zagreb—despite the fact that Croatian Australians make up one of the largest ethnic communities in this country—is an unfortunate exception to the rule. This is evidenced by the sheer volume of complaints we are receiving in my office alone from our Croatian-Australian communities—and I am sure other members throughout this parliament would be experiencing the same—about the lack of services offered by our Australian consulate in Zagreb. Again, I emphasise that this is no reflection on the consul who I believe is doing an excellent job under the circumstances, but he and his staff cannot be expected to operate with the sheer volume of people now going through.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—There is only the one.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—As the honourable member for Calwell has just reminded me, there is only the one there. Not only can the consulate not provide the full range of services for the large number of Croatians wishing to visit Australia or gain more permanent visas but also it cannot cater for the needs of the 10,000 Australian Croatians—that is, Australian citizens of Croatian descent—who are in that nation at any one time.Croatia is still emerging from communist rule and from the devastation of civil war. Subsequently, it is attempting to attract investment and capital to its borders. Considering Australia's large Croatian population, there is also a case to be made that we are losing out in a business and financial sense from not having a proper operating embassy in Zagreb. We should be using those links that exist between our two countries to create opportunities for Australian business in Croatia and our not having an embassy is a handicap to all of our people.Also, of course, there are humanitarian reasons for establishing an embassy in Zagreb. The lack of an embassy in the Croatian capital and the fact that Croatian citizens as well as citizens from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia have to travel to either Vienna or Belgrade to access the embassies there is a major impediment for many of those people who are impoverished and are still suffering in the aftermath of what has now been recorded as the largest European conflict since the Second World War. By travelling to Vienna or Belgrade, these people incur travel and accommodation expenses which are often beyond them.The matter of establishing a new embassy in a foreign country should never be taken lightly. Of course, the most serious question that needs to be answered is whether it is in Australia's best interests. Certainly, we need to consider whether such an embassy would be a wise use of taxpayers' funds. In both these respects, I believe the establishment of an Australian embassy in Zagreb makes sense. Our two countries have strong links thanks to the many Croatians who have chosen to make Australia their new home. An embassy would assist Australian businesses to take advantage of the many opportunities that exist in Croatia while providing recognition to Australia's Croatian community of the important role they now play in our society.I warmly support the motion before the House. The honourable member for Calwell has informed me that, as recently as last week, he received a direct request from the consulate there saying that they wish to expand and provide a better service. (Time expired).13:40:003544Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—In rising to support the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), who put the government's response on this issue, I would like to congratulate the member for Moore (Mr Filing) for raising the issue. It is an important issue and needs canvassing.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Reluctantly, though.NK6Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCH—The honourable member says that we were reluctant. I am the secretary of the government members foreign affairs, defence and trade committee and the honourable member for Aston is the chairman of that committee. Perhaps we have drawn short straws with respect to this issue. We note the merits of the arguments that have been put forward by various honourable members. I note the argument put forward by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), who said that governments are in a position where they have to take financial constraints and all the various arguments into consideration, and that there are a number of other countries also arguing for the level of representation that the honourable member for Moore has proposed we should see in Zagreb.The government and I are very mindful of the representations that have been made by members of the Croatian community in Australia. I have received letters today from a number of people, many of whom I respect greatly and know personally. I have one message from Tom Beram, who is the President of the Croatian Inter-Committee Council of New South Wales. He puts a very strong case for upgrading the representation in Zagreb and notes:Our organisation and its members have been part of the proud tradition of migrants that have been able to contribute to and enjoy Australia's way of life. As one of the largest migrant groups in Australia, there is a growing volume of exports, imports, trade, commerce and cultural exchange between our two countries. It is very important that we take note of his point that there is a growing volume of exports, imports, trade, commerce and culture exchange, but the fact of the matter is that we do have representation in Zagreb. We gave a consulate headed by an honorary consul, Dr Goroslav Keller, who provides excellent and effective consular services to the growing Australian community in Croatia. He is working to promote Australia's broader commercial and other bilateral interests. We take advantage of a number of visits and maintain links with relevant government, private sector and other bodies in Zagreb and Croatia, as well as expatriate Australians.As the honourable member for Aston said, at the present time of major constraint with expenditure of Australian moneys, we have to come to that conclusion at present, although we continue to take into account the various representations that are made.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—So you are saying that you won't support it.NK6Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCH—Members of the opposition are very good at sprouting their views and ideas for spending money. I go back to the comments from the honourable member for Reid, who spoke with a great deal of commonsense about this. It is always a matter for continuous assessment. At the moment we say that the representation that we have in Zagreb is working very well, although we will always be willing to look at further representations on the matter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Monday.Statements by Members354435443544McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I give notice that, at the next sitting, I shall present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law in order to help protect the entitlements of employees. That notice will be seconded by my colleague the member for Barton (Mr McClelland).I take this unusual step in order that the parliament have the maximum opportunity to deal with the protection of employees' entitlements. We need to test the bona fides of the government to see whether they are really concerned about the potential for corporate scams which may lead to the loss of jobs and legitimate entitlements by employees of corporations. Whatever one's view about Patrick's or the waterfront, the core issue is the security of employees' jobs and their entitlements.At the moment we hear a lot of talk about security. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has just discovered the buzz word. Let us talk about a bit of security for Australian workers in the context of corporate restructuring which might cost them not only their jobs—the key asset of any family—but also the loss of those entitlements which they have legitimately established under their awards, their agreements and the laws of the Commonwealth and the states.This is not about people making new claims or seeking new rights; it is about protecting two of the most fundamental rights in a modern industrial economy—the right of people who have jobs to retain those jobs when they act properly and the right of people to maintain their entitlements. (Time expired)35453545Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, recently the Australian Democrats visited Bendigo. Senator Lyn Allison released figures, which are printed in today's BendigoAdvertiser , that indicate that the Bendigo electorate has one of the worst unemployment rates in Australia. The Australian Democrats' Senator Allison said that she was shocked to see the results for Bendigo, and is quoted as saying:. . . they are fairly worrying and disturbing figures.I had heard that Bendigo had serious levels of unemployment and not a lot of prospects for jobs here. But you can start to see a picture of what the issues are in the area. What are the figures being quoted by the Democrats' Senator Allison? Are they last month's, April's, unemployment figures? No. Are they for March 1998? No. Are they for January 1998? No. Are they for April 1997? No. Are they for January 1997? No. Are they for December 1996? No. They are for August 1996. They are almost two years old.This is a shonky attempt by the Democrats to paint a black picture of Bendigo unemployment, which has dropped by 631 persons since the 1996 election—and that is with an increased population of nearly 4,000 people. There has been more employment in the private sector. Senator Allison should resign. (Time expired)35453545Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on the work of the Toongabbie-Seven Hills Neighbourhood Centre in my electorate of Greenway. I recently had the opportunity to visit this centre during Neighbourhood week. The centre has the responsibility for providing community activities for approximately 1,500 residents of the public housing estates in the Seven Hills-Toongabbie area. The New South Wales Urban Affairs and Planning Department has given a six-year community workers' grant to the centre.An experienced Seven Hills-based community worker, Karen Burden, will be coordinating the activities of the centre. Karen's role will involve arranging such community activities as the availability of public transport, community and domestic safety, methods of combating crime, and social activities. This centre is set to dramatically improve the quality of life for residents of public housing estates in the region. There will be a drive to ensure that a wide range of community activities from educational and health through to social and sporting events are made available to residents. I compliment Karen and her organising committee on the work done so far, and I look forward to providing whatever support I can to ensure the success of this worthy project.The need for governments, both state and federal, to provide more resources for public housing residents will increase as low income families find it more and more difficult to purchase their own homes. A large number of families are trapped in the private rental market due to this government's economic policies, and they are unable to save the deposit needed to enter home ownership. Increased employment uncertainty has made Australians less certain about investing in their first home. (Time expired)35463546Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—On 17 May, I went to the Croatian Cultural Association on Luddenham Road in my electorate to attend a ceremony commemorating the Bleiburg tragedy. During the service, I was given a book of eyewitness accounts of postwar massacres in Yugoslavia. The book is called Operation Slaughterhouse , and it is published by Prcela and Guldescu. It is a very interesting book which rewrites the history of the postwar period in light of the evidence of the witnesses to the massacre of 150,000 Croatian soldiers, and even more civilians, in May 1945 following the end of hostilities and the conflict of World War II in Europe. They were murdered or were the victims of an act of genocide. The act of genocide took place as a result of Croatian troops surrendering to the British at the Bleiburg Fields on the border of Austria. The troops were disarmed and returned across the border through Slovenia and Croatia, and were subsequently killed in Tito's extermination camps.The ceremony I attended was very moving. Genocide is something we should always bear in mind and learn from. I am reliably informed that on none of the Croatian programs on SBS radio was the ceremony referred to. None of the Croatians at the ceremony were impressed with SBS coverage. (Time expired)35463546Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to express my condolences on the death of the black saint of Redfern, Shirley Smith, who passed away late last month aged 76. Shirley was known to all Australians as `Mum Shirl'. She was indeed a great Australian. It has been estimated that she fostered some 5,000 children, both indigenous and non-indigenous. She was a resident of Stanmore in my electorate, and this year she was named the Marrickville citizen of the year.Shirl came from humble beginnings. She was born at the Eramble Mission in West Cowra and was a member of the Arradjarri people. In spite of a minimal formal education, she went on not only to look after all those children but also to become a founding member of the New South Wales Aboriginal Medical Service and the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service.Just this year she was voted one of Australia's 100 national living treasures. I think that Mum Shirl, as a great Australian, is someone whose passing should not be ignored by this House of Representatives and by this parliament. She will be dearly missed by all Australians of good will—both indigenous people and those who support indigenous Australians in their struggle for social justice. (Time expired)35463546Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—I give notice that, on 22 June 1998, I shall move:That this House:(1) notes the significant contribution the wool industry has made to Australia's economic development;(2) further notes that the Australian wool growing industry is currently experiencing difficult economic conditions;(3) acknowledges that the Australian wool industry has attempted to secure its future by grower contributions for promotion and research;(4) asks the Government to review the direction and efficiency of international promotion of wool;(5) urges the Government to increase the promotion of wool in Australia;(6) calls for the Government to introduce measures to encourage the use of wool by Australian fashion designers and garden manufacturers; and(7) further calls on the Government to encourage greater processing of wool and greater manufacture of woollen goods within Australia. This motion is being seconded by the member for Stirling, Mr Eoin Cameron. The reason for wanting to move this motion is that I believe that wool has been one of Australia's greatest contributors to our very good economic success story. It is a bit sad to note, however, that there are some problems in the industry at the moment. It is only by radical reform that we will be making sure that this industry will once again return to its former greatness. (Time expired)35473547Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—The Australian Electoral Commission publishes the very informative News File , which is a newsletter about events or statistical material that has become available. I normally find the publication very praiseworthy, but the most recent one continues what is now basically an old-fashioned way of assessing seats as being either Liberal or Labor, and looking at them totally from that perspective. Quite clearly, with seven Independents sitting in the House of Representatives—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—More every day!QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—Yes, the number is growing every day. It is probably one of the highest representations of Independent members since the 1920s. I would have thought it was incumbent upon the Electoral Commission to properly recognise this and to have some other statistical means for showing the community the composition of their Independent representation—in particular, in relation to the redistribution that has taken place in states like Western Australia and Queensland. I urge the Australian Electoral Commission to come into the 1990s and to recognise once and for all something that many Australians now believe is part and parcel of the fabric of our election system: the representation of constituents by Independent members of the House of Representatives.35473547Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Queensland section of the Huntington's Disease Association has a new home at Annerley in my electorate. The home for sufferers of this disease comes as a result of the dedication of families of sufferers and volunteers who care.Huntington's disease is an inherited disease in which people, generally in midlife, begin to suffer occasional jerks and spasms, gradual loss of brain cells and mental deterioration. As it is a dominant gene, children of people who have this disease have a 50 per cent chance of developing it. Symptoms usually begin between the ages of 35 and 40.I am indebted to Dr Joan Lawrence AM for some of the words and facts in my speech today. The new day respite centre for HD sufferers is named Florence Dannell House after the lady who bequeathed some $300,000 to the association. Mrs Dannell was not directly afflicted, nor was anybody in her family. Before her death a couple of years ago, at the ripe old age of the mid-90s, Mrs Dannell lived for a decade at the Hillcrest Nursing Home at Annerley.Mrs Dannell came to admire the style and dedication of Gwen Pratten, now the full-time welfare coordinator of the association. She was tremendously impressed by the service and support Gwen Pratten gave to sufferers living at Hillcrest. Mrs Dannell, who lived a frugal life, proved her generosity in her bequest. She recognised the need to reward the effort of people like Gwen Pratten and so many others in the HD association. Florence Dannell saw people so much younger than herself suffer from HD and found a way to help.The new centre will provide the support and service that sufferers and their families need. I certainly applaud the work of the HD association and pledge my support for their cause. There is never enough funding for mental health. It is one of those areas which need more and more recognition, and I will certainly do my best to promote it. (Time expired)35473547McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I note that the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) has given notice today of his intention to present a bill for employment security. There is certainly a need for that. It is clear that many companies have used corporate restructuring techniques to shift their assets further away from the employing body. Then they have closed down the employing body—which usually operated as a labour hire company.If the government is fair dinkum about protecting the security of workers, it will agree with the opposition and do something about that situation. It will agree that there is a need to enable workers to chase those assets away from the companies that have been stripped—to chase the assets higher up the corporate chain. If the members of the government are serious about job security, they will agree that there is a need to intervene if this bottom-of-the-harbour technique has been used to deprive workers of their employment entitlements and continuing employment, and they will agree that there is a need to effectively deem the company which has stripped the assets to be the employer for the purpose of a reinstatement remedy. The member for Canberra has clearly and firmly put the weights upon this government. If they are serious about job security, they will intervene to prevent this corporate rorting, this corporate restructuring, from preventing workers from retaining their employment entitlements and the job security that they and their families so heavily depend upon.35483548Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Last Friday, along with the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I attended the funeral of a great Australian. Ted Bradley, after the fall of Singapore, spent time in Changi prison and was forced to work on the infamous Thai-Burma railway. He was working in a Japanese copper mine only 35 kilometres from Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped. Kurri Kurri's Ted Bradley was only 79 when he died. There is no doubt that if it had not been for his horrible experiences in Changi and in other places he would have lived much longer. Despite his great wartime contribution to his nation, Ted Bradley continued to do community work. He was a life member of the Australian Labor Party and a life member of the RSL movement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements35483548Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) will be absent from question time this week. He is on an official visit to Canada to attend the APEC finance ministers meeting and to the United States to address financial market participants and business leaders following the announcement of the 1998-99 budget. The Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) will also be absent from question time this week. He is on an official visit to Geneva to attend the sixth meeting of the program coordinating board of the joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS. The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) will answer questions on his behalf.Miscellaneous354814:01:003548Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciated the remarks you made at the beginning of this day and the beginning of National Reconciliation Week and your decision to fly the relevant flags in that regard. It speaks very well for this chamber that you were able to do all that on our behalf.Reconciliation Week is a very important event. It follows, of course, a marvellous reconciliation of people dear to us—given the Irish background of many people in this chamber—with that magnificent result in the referendum in Ireland and Northern Ireland over the course of the weekend. All who were involved in that ought to be congratulated. I hope that spirit of reconciliation can extend home here for the people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent in this country—for whom that spirit of reconciliation is so important.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice354935493549Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Now that it is your intention to introduce a GST, if elected, what guarantee will you give that you will never, ever lift the rate?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is quiet, when members from both sides are silent—I will call the Prime Minister.3549Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I suppose I could always put it in l-a-w, law, couldn't I? I might remind those opposite that the Australian record for dishonouring commitments on taxation is held by the Australian Labor Party.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Will it go up? Are you ruling that out?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Opposition members will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian Labor Party went to the 1993 election denouncing the plans of the coalition to reform Australia's taxation system. They said, `Vote against the Liberals so your indirect tax does not go up.' And what did they do? In the August budget of 1993 they increased taxation on every conceivable indirect taxation item. It even provoked a violent reaction from the leaders of the trade union movement in the then Prime Minister's home state of New South Wales, when people like Michael Easson and Peter Sams—lions of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales—denounced it.Let me say one thing to the Leader of the Opposition: I can guarantee to him and to the Australian people that the taxation plan we unveil before the election will further add to the stability, the safety and the security which my government has brought to the conduct of the affairs of the Australian nation since we were entrusted with office in March 1996.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—No-one trusts you.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You were thrown out of office because people did not believe you. And you will continue to be seen, particularly on issues such as taxation, as utterly and completely untrustworthy.35493549Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware of alternative approaches to tax reform which have been proposed? What is the government's response to these proposals?3549Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I am aware. I saw on the television last night and I read in the papers this morning that the Leader of the Opposition is going to sometime announce the details of what he calls `a tax credit proposal for working families'. I have got a very simple message for the working families of Australia: if you make Kim Beazley Prime Minister, any tax cut he might offer you will be more than eaten up in the higher interest rate that his government will bring.Of all of the areas of economic achievement of which I am particularly proud in the time that I have been Prime Minister and the coalition has been in government, we have presided over the largest falls in housing interest rates since the end of World War II. We have given to the Australian people—we have given to the working men and women of Australia—falls in their mortgage interest rates which are the equivalent of a pay rise of $100 a week. We have produced interest rate falls which represent a reduction on the average loan paid by an Australian home buyer of $330 a month. And you contrast that, Mr Speaker, with the record of the Leader of the Opposition when, for the 13 years that he was the senior minister in former Labor governments, we saw housing interest rates in 1990 go to 17½ per cent—they are now about seven per cent—and we saw small business interest rates go to 20½ per cent. And the thing that would be most at risk under a Labor government would be the low interest rates my government has brought to home buyers and small businesses.So I say to anybody who may have a transitory attraction to any sort of policy offered by the Leader of the Opposition, `Just think of how it would be gobbled up almost overnight in the higher rates that would be a product of a Labor government led by the Leader of the Opposition.'My government, in so many areas, has brought safety, security and stability to the Australian community. Our budget has protected the Australian economy against the turbulence of what is going on in our part of the world. And I would say to the working men and women of Australia, `You have had lower interest rates. You have had security. You have had stability. Don't risk it with this mob opposite. They had 13 years and they gave you the highest interest rates you have ever experienced in your lifetime, not only for small business but for home buyers. They gave you the highest level of unemployment since the years of the Great Depression and they gave you an immense sense of economic insecurity. And that, of course, is why you threw them out, neck and crop, in March 1996.'35503550Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—GST equals inflation equals higher interest rates.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition wil get to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister, the stung and jumping around Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his question without intervention.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Does he agree with the statements of the Treasury secretary, Ted Evans, last week that while `every economic textbook will tell you in principle that shifting the tax burden toward further reliance on indirect taxes will significantly aid national saving and you won't find that convincingly demonstrated in studies of international tax reform experience' and that, according to Ted Evans, it was more important to overcome the poverty traps that resulted from the combined effects of tax and social security systems which discourage welfare beneficiaries from looking for work? Does the Prime Minister agree with those statements?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition should remember when he is asking questions that they are not occasions to make speeches.3550Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am fascinated that the Leader of the Opposition has discovered an interest in the taxation system that he believes operates unfairly towards low wage and salary earners. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is Labor's taxation system about which we are now expressing concern. Let me move to the question of fairness and unfairness in the Australian taxation system. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition and to all of those who are interested in the issue of taxation reform that my government intends to reform the Australian taxation system, because the current system which you defend is unfair. That is why we want to change the tax system.What you are inviting the Australian people to believe is that the current taxation system is fair, and you have to do that because it is your taxation system. You are the party that for 13 years made the wholesale taxation system increasingly unfair. You are the government which, in 1993, despite the solemn promises you made to the Australian people—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Prime Minister was asked whether he agreed with Ted Evans when he said that overcoming the poverty traps was the principal problem with the taxation system. He has not answered the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition asked a very long question, and the Prime Minister is entirely within the ambit of question time in his response.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The most relevant thing about the taxation debate in Australia today is fairness. The most objectionable thing about Labor's taxation system—the system they want to preserve, protect and defend—is that it is manifestly unfair. We want to change the system to make it fairer. We want to change the system to take out the unfairness. We want to address the unfairness that you did not have the courage to address when you were in government, and we intend to do it.35513551McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Have you seen reports of proposals for a tax credit for families? How do these proposals compare with the benefits received by Australian families from the Howard government's family tax initiative?3551Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I did see reports that the honourable member for Griffith alluded to in the weekend papers on some tax benefits to be delivered at some future time by a Labor government. Here we go again. We have heard it all before. Who will forget—the Australian people certainly won't—that before the 1993 election there was the promise of tax cuts, the l-a-w tax cuts promised by a Labor government? The 1993 Labor budget delivered exactly the opposite because, instead of there being tax cuts, we saw an increase in the wholesale sales tax.Prior to the 1993 budget, the wholesale sales tax on fridges was 10 per cent. After the 1993 Labor budget, the wholesale sales tax on fridges was 12 per cent. The tax on soap and on toothpaste prior to the 1993 Labor budget was 20 per cent; after the 1993 Labor budget, 22 per cent. In the One Nation statement, Labor said, `We will permanently bring sales tax on motor vehicles, the family car, down to 15 per cent.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Wait until I call you. When the members of the government are quiet.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Acting Treasurer had an explicit question directed to him: how do the propositions that I announced yesterday to relieve the benefits on families compare with their family tax package? He was not asked anything else. He has been going for three minutes and he has not answered it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was based on a much wider field. The minister for finance will respond to the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Let me just repeat that under Labor the family fridges went from 10 per cent up to 12 per cent and, in the One Nation statement, they were going to permanently reduce the sales tax on cars to 15 per cent. What happened to the family car? Up the sales tax went to 22 per cent. If you could afford the family car, we saw the excise fees go up 7c for leaded petrol and 5c for unleaded petrol.What we see is Labor again promising benefits to the family. Let us just contrast that with what this government, the coalition government, has delivered in the way of benefits to the family. The family tax initiative, commencing on 1 January last year and fully in place by 1 July last year, brought benefits to ordinary families of some $15.40 per fortnight for those families where there was a double income. So families with two incomes and with children are $400 per year better off under this government. In the case of a single-income family, they are $900 a year better off—there is a fridge at least in that—which amounts to some $34.60 per fortnight.So the stark contrast is Labor five years ago promising family benefits, just as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, and delivering the opposite; this coalition government acting on its promise made before the last election and delivering those benefits through family tax reductions. If you want to see the real benefit for families that have come from a coalition government—the Prime Minister mentioned it just a short time ago—it represents the reduction from about 10½ per cent on home mortgages to around 6½ per cent, and that is some $75 per week. There is a lot of fridges in any year from $75 per week delivered by this government to the average family who own their own home. This is the government that represents families; this is the government that has delivered to those families.35513551Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Treasurer's statement last week that `the Australian tax system would be better if it taxed consump tion more than income earners'? Will you rule out any such significant change in the tax mix?3552Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me say this to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: what I will rule in is a change to the Australian taxation system that delivers greater fairness. What I will rule in is a change to the Australian taxation system that addresses the rorts that you refused to address. What I will rule in is a change to the Australian taxation system that provides enduring benefits to Australian families and not benefits that are going to evaporate as a result of high interest rate policies. Let me say again to those who sit opposite: you can indulge all the rhetoric you like—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Deputy Leader, can I have some silence please.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I am indebted to the Prime Minister for his answer. It was a very specific question as to not would he rule in but would he rule out a change to the consumption income tax mix. Would he please answer the question he was asked and not something else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is answering entirely in accordance with our standing orders. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—What I will rule in is an approach to the national accounts and to the budget of this country that is based upon responsible levels of expenditure producing lower levels of taxation. I am very proud of the fact that we have turned that $10½ billion deficit that you finally owned up to, much to the embarrassment of your leader, into a surplus over the last two years overwhelmingly by the exercise of expenditure restraint.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The size of the surplus has absolutely nothing to do with the consumption income tax mix. I ask him: does he agree with what his Treasurer said in favour of such a tax mix shift or does he rule it out? Does he agree with Costello or doesn't he?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader should address his point entirely to the point of order. The Prime Minister is answering entirely in accordance with the standing orders.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, let me just say again to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that you had 13 years to fix the Australian taxation system. You had 13 years to address the mixtures within the Australian taxation system. What you did was you allowed it to run further and further into disrepute. As the Minister for finance has reminded the Leader of the Opposition, you said one thing to the Australian public before the 1993 election and then you did the complete opposite. It enables me to say again to the Australian public that not only would a Labor government's high interest rate policies flowing from their high debt and high deficit policies wipe out the value of any transitory tax cuts but also just as in 1993 the Leader of the Opposition opposed the indirect tax—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. This is a rambling rant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not comment in that way.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question was specifically a tax mix switch question asking him what his view was on the statements made by his Treasurer. He has not got even remotely near it in about five minutes worth of peroration.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The custom in this place if points of order are raised is that they are addressed to the particular point of order and there is not a dissertation around them. The Prime Minister is answering the question entirely in accordance with the precedents of this place, including those set by honourable members on my left in days gone by.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is not a rambling rant; it is a reminder of recent economic and political history. It is a reminder to the Australian people that you said you were for lower indirect tax but you put up the sales tax on fridges from 20 per cent to 22 per cent. When you were finance minister you ran up huge deficits. If you had a go again, you would do the same thing. I will emphatically rule in the introduction of a taxation system that restores fairness to the working men and women of Australia.35533553Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—This question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall the former Prime Minister Paul Keating telling the small business community in May 1995 that economically `this is as good as it gets'? Could you please outline to the House what effect the recent interest rate falls have had on small business?3553Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. The member for Herbert is well known in his electorate and in this House as being a tireless worker for the small business community. Who could forget the previous Prime Minister telling small business that this is as good as it gets. It was typical of the arrogance and disregard for small business that typified the previous Labor government. The latest tax announcement from the Labor Party again should remind small business that, whatever the Labor Party reckon they are going to be offering, the people who will be paying in higher interest rates is of course the small business community, as they paid over and over and over again with high interest rates the whole time Labor was in office.We all know who pays for Labor's profligate spending—that is, the small business community. Who could ever forget that it was the small business community paying over 20 per cent for their interest rates just a few short years ago under the Labor Party. How could a business survive paying interest rates at 20 per cent, for some of them with risk margins at 22 per cent, 23 per cent and 24 per cent?VT4REIDMr Reid—Many of them didn't survive.WI4Mr REITH—As the member for Bendigo says, a lot of them did not survive. They went broke. Then the former Prime Minister had the cheek to say that this was the recession we had to have after he sent a whole lot of small businesses broke.This government gives priority to small business. That means that we give priority to properly managing the national economy. That is why we are very pleased that for the benefit of small business we have locked in lower interest rates, lower inflation and generally a much better economic climate. Small business has experienced five interest rate cuts since March 1996. That is a fall of 2½ per cent. That has given small business the best interest rates for 33 years! On a $100,000 loan that is a saving of $2,500 a year.The other good news is to be seen in the recent report from the Reserve Bank. They said, and I quote from their May bulletin:Signs of competition in small business finance have increased over the past six months.So we have not only delivered lower interest rates but also improved the competition in the banking industry. We are seeing more competition and that is good for small businesses as well.If you look at just a few headlines from recent times, on 30 March Westpac announced a cut—good for small business. We then demanded that the others follow. On 4 April the Commonwealth Bank was lowering rates and on 1 May the ANZ followed. This government delivers for small business. The prospect for small business if ever Labor were to be re-elected would be a repeat of what we had from them before—higher interest rates and the death knell for many small businesses.We have done a great job. I compliment the Treasurer and the acting Treasurer on what they have done for small business—that is, delivering for small business safety, security and stability.35533553Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is also about small business and is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you agree with one of Australia's most successful clothing designers Collette Dinnigan that the imposition of a GST on small business would be counterproductive, leaving consumers feeling cheated and substantially increasing the burden of paperwork and the cost of accounting and bookkeeping?3553Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I had not actually seen that comment but the answer is, no, I do not agree with it. What I do agree with is getting rid of a taxation system, which you support, which currently, for example, has the following consequence. This is a snapshot of that brilliantly fair, decent, equitable and family friendly taxation policy that the Australian Labor Party supports.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You said you would never ever have a GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think the Australian public should bear this in mind when they start hearing some of the scaremongering from the Labor Party opposite. The more those opposite interject the more you know their vulnerability on this particular issue.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Come on, fellas; give us plenty of noise! You know all about it. This is apparently what the member for Cunningham wants. He wants a taxation system that in the kitchen does this: it taxes detergent and other cleaners at 22 per cent.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I tell you what it taxes at 12 per cent—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister! Prime Minister!ZD4Mr HOWARD—flavoured milk, fruit juice—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition are silent, the honourable member for Cunningham on a point of order.8I4MARTINMr Martin—My point of order goes to relevance. I asked specifically about an issue and the Prime Minister said that he had not seen it. Perhaps to help him so he can be relevant, can I table the actual article from which I was referring earlier?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not to be done on a point of order.8I4MARTINMr Martin—If he no longer wants to comment on it, perhaps you might direct him to sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cunningham will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor has a point of order. The Prime Minister will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I am sorry, Prime Minister, but I need to make this point.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition are silent, the member for O'Connor on a point of order.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I want to draw your attention to the rulings of the member who just made that particular intervention when he was Speaker. Quite frequently he would say `No point of order' when you were three metres from the dispatch box and he should remember his own precedent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has made his point.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I better have a look to see if there is anybody else. Returning to the reason why I do not agree with the comment made by the small business operator mentioned by the member for Cunningham—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Oh, you do!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I don't, Stephen. I do not. She is badly misguided. The reason she is badly misguided is that the present system is absolutely unfair, lopsided, inequitable and in need of very, very great change. I think there is something outrageously unfair and anti-family about a system that would impose a 12 per cent tax on flavoured milk, a 12 per cent tax on fruit juice, a 12 per cent tax on biscuits, a 12 per cent tax on ice-cream, on cutlery, the fridge—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, it must be testing even your tolerance on relevance for someone to ask a question about small business bookkeeping to be talking about flavoured milk in the domestic kitchen. Mr Speaker, is that not totally irrelevant to a question about small business costs?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On the contrary, I would have thought that flavoured milk was sold more often by small business than any other. Having said that—the Prime Minister is entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It gets even worse when you move from the kitchen into the bathroom. You know what Gareth Evans and Paul Keating and Kim Beazley imposed sales tax on at the rate of 22 per cent? Cosmetics, shampoo, soap, deodorant, toothpaste. Oh, but weren't they generous! They put a bare 12 per cent on the hand basin and the bath. Gee, they were generous! They exempted toothbrushes and medicated mouthwash.When you go into the lounge room, it makes the kitchen and the bathroom look positively benign. You go into the lounge room and you get a 32 per cent tax on the tele, the video and the stereo and a 22 per cent tax on compact discs, computers and bric-a-brac. On top of that, the Labor Party wants to maintain for young Australians the price of imported CDs at $6 or $7 more than they should be. You are more interested in helping multinational companies than you are in reducing the price of CDs for young Australians.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is getting a little away from the mark.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Reluctant as I am, I must rise on the point of relevance. What the question was very explicitly about was the quote from Collette Dinnigan, who said that the imposition of a GST would be counterproductive on small business, leaving consumers feeling cheated and substantially increasing the burden of their paperwork and the cost of accounting and bookkeeping. Mr Speaker, you might at least get the Prime Minister to make an effort to incorporate a sentence or two on that matter in this lengthy peroration.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition and I ask that members of the government remain silent. I think the Prime Minister is extending his answer a little, but I am sure members are very interested.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I had actually reached the penultimate part of my answer. The real demonstration of fairness Beazley style is that he supports a tax system that says, that if you can afford to buy a Lear jet, you pay no sales tax; but, if you want to buy a family car, you pay sales tax at 22 per cent. That is why I want to change the present system, and you are a disgrace for trying to obstruct our efforts.35553555Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what assistance Australia has given to Indonesia to assist it through its economic crisis? Also, is there a case for Australia giving further assistance?3555Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—As the honourable member for Groom and all honourable members know only too well, the Australian government has been very concerned about the political, humanitarian and economic crisis which has beset Indonesia over the last nine or 10 months. As a government, we clearly have wanted to do all we possibly could to help a friend and a neighbour in very real difficulties. With that in mind, we have helped in two very important ways.First of all, we have played an extremely significant role in putting together the IMF package and, indeed, encouraging the IMF to ensure that that package is one that can be implemented in a socially acceptable way in Indonesia. As a result of the IMF's own package, the IMF will altogether provide something like $A55 billion worth of external financing for the Indonesian economy. I do not think anyone would doubt that a figure of $55 billion is an enormous amount of money. It is clearly a package which is necessary at this time, but I just draw the House's attention to the fact that it is a significant amount of money.The second thing we have done is play a very important role in encouraging the World Bank to coordinate a humanitarian effort to assist Indonesia. This has come together very successfully, with donors offering around $500 million worth of assistance. We ourselves announced a $30 million assistance package three or so weeks ago and, in total, we will provide something like $50 million in humanitarian assistance to address the current economic and food security situation largely over and above our normal aid program for Indonesia. So Australia has done a great deal to help Indonesia at this time and it is appropriate that we should do so. If further assistance is needed, then, naturally enough, we will have a look at that. Let me say that we will keep this matter under review.It does remind me to say, though, that I have noticed the Leader of the Opposition and other people in the Labor Party going around saying that what Australia should do is coordinate and support an Indonesian version of the Marshall Plan. I only make that point because we have of course been doing a great deal. We have already been helping with the $55 billion IMF package, and we have already been helping to coordinate through the World Bank the $500 million humanitarian package. I think it is important that the Labor Party recognise the tremendous amount of assistance that has already being provided for Indonesia.At this stage I do not think, over and above those very significant packages, the urgent need is so much for additional funds as per the Marshall Plan, which provided in its own time $US13 billion of assistance to Europe, which is the equivalent of about $US127 billion in today's terms. The challenge for the Indonesian economy is to get the exchange rate back up from where it currently is so as to make the operation of the economy viable again. That can only be achieved if, firstly, political stability is achieved through a constructive program of political reform and, secondly, there is a continuation of the difficult task of economic reform consistent with the IMF package.They are the things that need to be done in Indonesia and I think President Habibie and his government well recognise that. Let me also say that they are very grateful, as were their predecessors, for the support that Australia and the international community has provided for the Indonesian economy. There is tremendous support from this country for the people of Indonesia at this difficult time. There is a great deal of support from the international community as a whole. Some of the task must be left to the Indonesian government itself to ensure that there is appropriate political and economic reform.35563556Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, will you be following the lead of your colleague the federal minister for health—who has publicly stated that health costs should be zero rated for goods and services tax—and state your support for education expenses to be similarly zero rated for goods and services tax? If not, why not?3556Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government will be introducing reforms to the tax system which will be fair to all Australians. We have put into place policies for education which have opened doors that were closed for decades by the Labor Party, and I welcome the opportunity to tell the House about these.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. He had a specific question: would he support the zero rating of education under a GST, as did the minister for health, or not? It is not an excuse for a peroration on education.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. The minister is entirely within our standing orders in the manner of his response.BT4Dr KEMP—The Labor Party perpetuated inequity in education policy throughout its entire time in office. When it left power, 30 per cent of young people could not read and write properly. The 70 per cent of young people who did not go from school to university were neglected.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—In or out? Answer the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The government has now set in place a tax reform task force which is looking at how we can extend equity to all Australians through the tax system, and we will announce our decisions at the appropriate time. 3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Have you finished your answer, Minister?BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Yes.35573557West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What success has the government had in increasing choice in education for low income families? Is the minister aware of any other policies that would impact on low income families accessing education?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You will need more than Pauline.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane.Opposition members interjecting—XK6Mrs WEST—What would be the effect of these policies?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Pauline's little pal!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will repeat her question. There was so much noise on the opposition benches, it was impossible to hear her.XK6Mrs WEST—What success has the government had in increasing choice in education for low income families?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume her seat. If members of the opposition persist in intervening, I am afraid that I will have no choice but to ask the member to repeat her question again. Would the honourable member for Bowman please state her question, and will the members of the opposition remain silent?XK6Mrs WEST—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What success has the government had in increasing choice in education for low income families?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—None!XK6Mrs WEST—Is the minister aware of any other policies that would impact on low income families accessing education?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No!XK6Mrs WEST—What would be the effect of these policies?3557Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Bowman for her question, and it is obvious that she struck a very sensitive nerve on the other side of the House. The government is committed to providing every Australian school child with a quality education. That, of course, is why this government has worked so hard to introduce national literacy standards and to introduce vocational education opportunities for the 70 per cent of students not going on to university and why we have increased funding to both government and non-government schools.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—A GST on schools! Rule it out, if it is not!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—The government is also particularly committed to the rights of parents to choose the best school for their child. That is why one of our proudest achievements in education was the abolition of Labor's new schools policy when we came to office. It was an unfair, dictatorial policy which prevented low income families from effectively exercising educational choice because it refused to fund needy schools at a level appropriate to their educational need.Many battling families in this country in suburbs such as Bankstown, Rooty Hill and Prestons in Sydney and Broadmeadows, Werribee and Coburg in Melbourne have welcomed the opportunity now to establish low fee schools which give them the opportunity for choice, which they were seeking. In the past two years, since we have taken this policy decision, some 76 new low fee schools have been established, and many of them have been in these lower income suburbs. Parents who were formerly denied choice by the Labor Party have now been able to get the schools that they believe will give their children the choice that they need.What has the Labor Party had to say about this? Over the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition fronted up to the Australian Education Union conference. He has been waiting by the mailbox for months to get the education policy for the Labor Party from the Australian Education Union. Finally they asked him along, they gave him the script and he obediently went through it. If there is one thing they do not like—they do not like a lot of things, they do not like literacy standards, they have opposed literacy standards—it is our jobs pathway program which gives school leavers jobs. They do not like that. In fact, Sharon Burrows, the secretary of that union, described that policy as obscene. But the thing they do not like most of all is school choice. They do not like school choice because they want to lock low income families into schools when they would prefer to have another choice, and you know that is the case.The Leader of the Opposition has, therefore, obliged them by saying that the Labor Party would restore Labor's new schools policy. The effect of this, of course, is to threaten the existence of each of these 76 low fee schools that have been established. I am sure the thousands of parents who have taken the opportunity opened under our policy will make their views known at the next election when they know that Labor Party members are going to be coming along and closing these schools. The Leader of the Opposition may be interested to know that three of these schools are in his own electorate—the Foundation Christian School, the `Living Waters' Lutheran Primary School and Tranby College—none of whom would have been funded had it not been for our change of policy.Will you be going along there and telling these schools you are closing them down? Will you be going along there and telling these schools there will be no more schools of this kind? You are a narrow, sectional, selfish party which pursues the interest of those supporting you at the expense of the battling families of this country. We will stand up for the low income families of this country, and you will be punished by them at the next election.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent—I know that members get a trifle enthusiastic, but it does help if we can hear one another.35583558Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I am sorry to spoil the frivolity, but my question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I draw the minister's attention to the morbidity study of Vietnam veterans published on 19 March 1998 which points to a markedly higher incidence of congenital abnormalities, suicide, accidental death and cancer in the children of Vietnam veterans. Is the minister aware that the United States government has accepted responsibility for the children of American Vietnam veterans afflicted by spina bifida? If the data in the morbidity study is verified, will the government act urgently to legislate to provide care and compensation for the affected children?3558Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I thank the member for McPherson for his question. Can I say, Mr Speaker, at the outset that this nation is very proud of those who served in Vietnam because they served in one of the longest involvements of this nation in war in this century. We are certainly all well aware that our Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party is, indeed, a returned Vietnam veteran, as is the member for McPherson. The Vietnam veterans have long sought a very comprehensive study of the effects of war on their health and also on that of their families.Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—If the members of the opposition would remain silent: I see this as a very significant issue and I think this House should take pity on those who interject from the other side of the House.The Vietnam veterans have long sought a study of this nature and this morbidity study, which is the morbidity study of male Vietnam veterans, is the first to be released in this country. Let me say that not only did we study the health effects of war on the males who served in Vietnam but also on the 484 females who served in Vietnam, and those results are being compiled as we speak.The response we had from the Vietnam veterans who were surveyed is one of the best results a government could ever have sought to achieve. Something like 76 per cent of those who were surveyed returned those survey forms. I think that demonstrates a commitment from the Vietnam veterans because they support the process that this government put in place.Those who were posted to Vietnam were amongst the fittest and healthiest that this nation could have serving and send to Vietnam. That is why we have said that we are concerned by the findings in this report. The government has already said that we are concerned about the health of Vietnam veterans and also the health of families of Vietnam veterans.The next stage of this process is to validate the findings in this report. That has the support of the Vietnam veterans organisations. In fact, I spent the weekend in Darwin at the annual conference of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and they are part of the process and have also been supporting the processes of this government and the action that we have taken. The validation will be done by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and that will also protect the confidentiality of those who responded initially to the survey.The issues identified in the report are already mainly covered in the compensation of our repatriation system for those veterans with those conditions. We have the best compensation for our veterans of any repatriation system in the world. I think that is widely acknowledged by many in this House and also by veterans from all conflicts.Can I also say that we are not going to leave any stone unturned as we go through the process, working with the Vietnam Veterans Association, until we validate this process. Validation is important. We are taking this issue extremely seriously. Just to add further to the answer: we recently committed $750,000 to Vietnam veterans' research including research into agent white—which might be commonly known as agent orange—particularly in relation to genetic birth defects. So we do take the issue very seriously. It is a most comprehensive report.I commend to all members of this House that, if they have veterans—particularly Vietnam veterans—or their families in their area, they make sure they avail themselves of a copy of this report and work with the government and the processes so that we can get to the bottom of this very serious health issue.35593559Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the fate of Australian cargo on the international union black-banned ship Columbus Canada .Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. The member will address his question to the minister.MF4Mr COBB—Is any progress being made in having this cargo unloaded? What hardships are being experienced by Australian exporters who have cargo on this ship?3559Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I can inform the House that the Columbus Canada is still subject to a blockade off the West Coast of the US.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Absolutely! The fight is against the scabs!WI4Mr REITH—It is the case that members of the Labor Party like the member for Charlton are still supporting this illegal action against Australian exporters. I can tell the House that this blockade is being run by the International Longshoremen, which is a US union affiliated with the International Transport Federation—the ITF—and I can tell the House that John Coombs is the regional director of the ITF. He is not just the national secretary of the MUA, but he is also the spokesperson, the activist, for the ITF in Australia and has, for many years, been an executive of the ITF. He is an Australian who is organising this US union to blockade Australian exports with the support of the federal Labor Party against Australian jobs.I welcome the fact that the ACCC has taken action to seek injunctions in the Federal Court and that the ACCC, in its statement last week, particularly referred to its concerns of the boycott of the Columbus Canada. There are particular reasons why this cargo is as important, if not more important, than others. The Columbus Canada has on board a cargo of gluten, which is a wheat based product. It is a very good export for the Australian wheat industry and it is supplying the bread making industry in the US.The company particularly concerned is the Manildra Group. The Manildra Group has spent tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars in recent years putting in capital equipment so as to be able to build up this very important export market for Australia. That means jobs for Australians. When he was asked about this issue on Countrywide on ABC radio on 21 May, the General Manager of the Manildra Flour Mills, Peter Simpson, said,The impact of the blockade and the ban on the Columbus Canada was twofold, including the fact that it certainly cost the potential loss of a client.That is particularly important because they have been battling to get into the US market. They are against the Europeans. One of the criteria for the successful and continued entry into the US market is our capacity to be a reliable supplier.The fact is that the Labor Party's support for the MUA represents the export of Australian jobs to Europe, and it ought to be condemned. It ought to be condemned for its shameful anti-export jobs policy and support of the MUA. This dispute has shown where certain people stand on important issues. We had the member for Charlton and other Labor members supporting the MUA. We had the member for Calare supporting the Labor Party on the stevedoring levy legislation and then not bothering to turn up, but he is in fact supporting the Labor Party against jobs in his own electorate, as this company is based in that electorate.What a contrast that makes to the Liberal member for Gilmore, who also has part of the Manildra Group in her electorate. What she did, as we all did on this side, was to vote for jobs. We voted for exports. This is the party that is determined to see a reformed waterfront for the jobs it will create.35603560Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family Services. Will the minister follow the lead of his colleague the Minister for Health and Family Services, who has publicly stated that health costs should be zero rated for the GST, and state his support for child-care expenses also being zero rated? If not, why not?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So far we have had two questions from the Leader of the Opposition asking does the Prime Minister agree, we have had one from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asking does he agree and we have had one from the member for Cunningham asking does he agree.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the point of order?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—My point of order is that the question is one of two things. The question follows that of the member for Port Adelaide who asked, `Will you follow the lead of X,Y or Z?' The question is either a hypothetical question or a request for a statement of new policy. It must be one or the other. It cannot be within standing orders, and I ask you to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—While I understand and sympathise with some aspects of the honourable member's concern, I point out that exactly the same question has been asked by members on both sides of the House in somewhat similar circumstances over a considerable period of time. I therefore call the honourable Minister for Family Services to respond.3560Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his point of order, which I thought was appropriate but which has been ruled out of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is so much noise from the opposition that I cannot hear anything. Would the minister mind beginning again.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—I was complimenting the member for Parramatta. In answer to the question from the member for Jagajaga, which she prefaced by asking whether I will follow the example of the senior minister in the Health and Family Services portfolio, and I certainly do, the Minister for Health and Family Services said:The issue will be dealt with by Cabinet and, when that matter is determined, the Government will make a decision. But, in making decisions about the future of taxation reform in this country—and this is the part you should listen to—we will make sure that all elements of the Australian community will be treated fairly and with equity.That is something you had the opportunity to do for 13 years but chose not to.35613561Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the very welcome result of the referendum conducted in Ireland this past weekend. Minister, would you advise the House on the result and also what contribution Australia has made in support of the peace process in Northern Ireland over the years?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the Labor Party will remain silent.3561Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, it really is woeful, even on a serious issue like this, that the Labor Party continue with their puerile interjections. I very much hope that those who are viewing this question time recognise that constant flow of interjections, even on an issue like the Northern Ireland peace process. The Australian government, the coalition and the people of Australia warmly welcome the referenda that have taken place in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The size of the majority of both of those votes was most impressive. We regard this as one of the most historic developments in Irish politics in over 70 years. It is an enormous step towards peace, although it has to be understood that it is only the beginning of a very long march towards peace.This will require goodwill, understanding and compromise on the part of all the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that this peace process is carried through. The Australian government calls on all those who have until now remained outside the process to join the majority who have chosen a peaceful future over the divisions of the past. I have already commended the leaders and participants who have worked tirelessly to make this achievement possible.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Are you going to give Adams a visa?4G4Mr DOWNER—In the face of constant interjections and interruptions from the opposition, let me reiterate that on this side of the House we warmly congratulate Prime Minister Blair for the wonderful job he has done and indeed for building on the achievements of John Major before him. We also congratulate the Taoiseach of Ireland, Bertie Ahern, who has played such an enormously important role and those in Northern Ireland who have been party to these discussions.The honourable member for Stirling asked what role Australia had played. Let me say that not only has Australia shown great goodwill and commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland for a very long time but, very importantly, the Australian government has over a number of years been providing funds for the International Fund for Ireland. When I was in the Republic of Ireland earlier this year, I handed over an additional cheque for $1½ million to the International Fund for Ireland.We have been delighted to provide support for that fund, and it is important that people know some of the useful things it has done. For example, we were able to bring some young unemployed people to Australia—to Brisbane and also to Bendigo—from both sides of the border in order to help those people improve their training, improve their job opportunities and to develop tolerance and understanding.On behalf of the government, on behalf of the coalition and on behalf of the Australian people, let me say that I wish the people of Northern Ireland a prosperous and peaceful future. They have done a wonderful job in supporting the peace process. It has got real momentum now, and we very much urge all of them to continue that path to peace.35613561Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has the minister seen reports that South Australian small business operator Mr Lindsay Boyle will be slugged $18,000 by Employment National for a service he previously received free from the CES? Minister, why should employers have to pay a new jobs tax to take on the unemployed? Minister, isn't it wrong that, having abolished a free employment service to help the unemployed, it is now on offer only from your mate John Laws?3562Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I congratulate the member for Batman on the question; that was largely comprehensible. But I say that the government has not abolished a free job service either to unemployed people or to employers. The question focused on the matter of charging of employers. Let me inform the House that employers can advertise their jobs free of charge through the Australian Job Network touch screen system simply by dialling the teleservice vacancy centre on 131715. Many employers are taking advantage of this free service that is offered to them.There are also a number of members of the Job Network who are offering employers the free lodgment of vacancies and the free processing of those vacancies. The Salvation Army is one of these, Mission Australia is another, and there are quite a number of other members of the Job Network offering this service. So it is a matter of choice. It is a commercial decision on the part of the Job Network member and the employer in relation to fees.As a matter of principle, the charging of fees to employers for employment services is not new. In 1989 the previous government introduced fee-for-service arrangements that allowed the CES to charge employers for recruitment services—this service was known as CES Plus—so the principle of charging employers was established by the previous government. It is a principle that we have carried on in the construction of the Job Network but, as I say, it is a matter of commercial decision for Job Network members to decide what fees they charge and, if employers do not like the service they receive for those fees, they can go to a Job Network member that does not charge fees or they can lodge their vacancy free of charge with the teleservice vacancy centre.35623562Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister outline for the House how Australian farmers are benefiting from low interest rates secured by the federal government's management of the national economy?3562Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the member for his question. If there is one thing farmers will never forget in this country, it is that under Labor interest rates for them reached well into the mid-20s and they stayed there for a very long time. At a time when we were trying to ensure their competitiveness on international markets, Labor was busily exporting the prosperity of Australia's farmers to other countries where interest rates were at more reasonable levels. While that was happening, because of the very high margins in this country over and above our competitors, speculation in the Australian dollar also impacted very savagely on Australia's farmers.Farmers indicated to us in the last election campaign that there was nothing they wanted more than economic management of the sort that would lower interest rates. And we have delivered; we have delivered in spadefuls. There have been no less than five interest rate cuts since we came to government, and they are now benefiting farmers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year.Members might like to think of the difference between a rate of 25 per cent and a rate of seven or eight per cent for Australia's average farmer with a debt of $132,000 or in Queensland $174,000—in some areas of Queensland it is double and triple that. In Western Australia, it is about $180,000 per farm. For a farmer trying to stabilise debt or a farmer trying to expand his operations or place the next generation on the land with some sort of future, low interest rates are extremely important.Exactly the same applies for value adding. That is an area which is utterly dependent upon a cheap supply of capital for us to be competitive internationally. I have always strongly supported value adding, contrary to assertions by the member for Burke. Under the sort of regime which the opposition ran, their attempts to value add ended up in farmers receiving less for their products because we were not competitive. The fact is that we are now competitive. So where value adding contracted under their economic management, over the last 12 months the net number of jobs in agribusiness in Australia has increased by 20,000 which is the highest growth rate in jobs in any sector of the Australian economy. And it has happened under our economic equations because we have interest rates down. The next farmer I meet who wants to return to the economic management of the side opposite will be the first one.35633563Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer that free medical care in doctors' surgeries and public hospitals is a problem? What exactly did the Treasurer mean when he compared doctors' fees to charges for visits to lawyers and accountants? If the Treasurer was not talking about a co-payment, then what was he talking about? Finally, will the Prime Minister today guarantee that the coalition will never ever introduce compulsory co-payments for medical care?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—On a point of order, Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Parramatta—and we should congratulate you on becoming a parent too.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Thank you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Put your point of order please.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I refer to House of Representatives Practice at page 513, where it says:. . . it is not permissible to ask whether a reported statement is correct. A Minister, although he or she may have responsibility for a matter, does not have responsibility for the accuracy of reports by others on the matter.The question further offends the provision against asking for an opinion, that is, `Does the Prime Minister agree with this, that or the other proposition?' On all of those headings, the question is out of order and ought to be ruled out of order or it will be treated as an invitation by the opposition to do nothing but ask for opinions and ventilate Labor prejudice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Parramatta will resume his place. I ask the member for Dobell to repeat his question. I believe it to be in order, but I would like to hear it again.MG4Mr LEE—With pleasure, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer that free medical care in doctors' surgeries and public hospitals is a problem? What exactly did the Treasurer mean when he compared doctors' fees to charges for visits to lawyers and accounts? If he was not talking about a co-payment, then what was he talking about? Finally, will the Prime Minister guarantee today that the coalition will never ever introduce compulsory co-payments for medical care?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Although the question is very close to the concerns raised by the honourable member for Parramatta, the questioner is referring to a purported statement made by a colleague of the Prime Minister and, therefore, the question is in order.3563Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am absolutely delighted that the member for Dobell asked me this question because he was the man who went on AM straight after the Treasurer and deliberately misrepresented what he had said, so much so that even the ABC found it necessary to run an apology the following day. The Treasurer was not saying what you are were alleging. We made our position clear about the maintenance of Medicare at the last election. We have made our position clear about not introducing a co-payment since.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You made it clear about the GST too—never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I also remind you that the only government that ever contemplated introducing a co-payment was a Labor government. It was Brian Howe who wanted to introduce a co-payment. If I remember rightly, it caused quite a fuss, quite a ruckus in the parliamentary Labor caucus at the time.The Treasurer was deliberately verballed by you. The Treasurer was deliberately misrepresented by you, as you have been doing repeatedly on this issue. The reality is that just as your colleagues have run around scaring the elderly, you have run around Australia conducting a scare campaign on this issue. The Treasurer was not alleging what you are claiming he was. The ABC acknowledged it and any fair-minded person would understand that you are completely misrepresenting what the Treasurer had said.35643564Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's attention would have been drawn to the report in yesterday's Canberra Times concerning Major Brian Watters, Chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs. Prime Minister, what is the government's response to comments made on this very important issue?3564Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for the question. I want to take the opportunity of saying that I was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, to read of an attack that was made over the weekend by an independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mr Moore.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—He is a member of the Liberal government.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He is what? He is a member of the Liberal government!5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I see. That disappoints me even further. If you think that somehow or other is going to alter my view of the comments he made, you are wrong. Of all the people in the Australian community who are trying to grapple with the enormous social and human cost of drug abuse, I would have thought there was no group better suited, by dint of hard experience at the coal face, to understand the real dimension of the tragedy of drug abuse than members of the Salvation Army. I think the attack which was made on Major Watters was not only a mean-minded and insubstantial attack but also an attack born of prejudice designed to divert community attention from the fact that Brian Watters has had long experience in the Salvation Army dealing with the drug problem.I deliberately hand-picked and chose Major Watters to chair the Australian National Council on Drugs which I announced in March this year—a council, I might say, that flowed out of a statement that represented the highest level of financial support for the anti-drugs campaign in this country given by any Australian government over the last 10 years. It represents an initiative which has been widely applauded throughout the Australian community.It is no secret that Major Watters was a critic of the heroin trial in the ACT. It is no secret that Major Watters adopts the view, as do many others, including myself, that the policy of zero tolerance of drug taking in this country is a wholly credible policy and a policy that ought to be pursued more vigorously by government and by people who are concerned about the problem.I make it very clear that I do not apologise for a moment for the appointment of Major Brian Watters as Chairman of this council. I think it was an excellent appointment. I cannot think of a better man or woman in Australia to do the job, and I totally reject Mr Moore's criticisms.35643564Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, having so aptly characterised the Minister for Health in the Carnell government, might I ask you to turn your attention to the Queensland government. Prime Minister, will you be calling on your coalition colleagues Borbidge and Sheldon to once and for all categorically reject One Nation's offer of supply and confidence, and are you prepared to allow your party colleagues to attempt to form a minority government with the support of One Nation?3564Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—This is the man who says that when you are talking about Wik you narrow cast your message. This is the man who says if you go into Queensland don't mention Wik.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Here is the Lindsay by-election again!ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is the man who led a party whose candidate at the Lindsay by-election in October 1996 made a second preference deal with Australians Against Further Immigration.I just happen to have with me the transcript of an interview with Vince Townsend who was the candidate for Australians Against Further Immigration in the Lindsay by-election. This is what he had to say:The only ones that did approach us in regard to this how to vote card was the representative of the Labor Party.And listen to this:And an arrangement was made that we wouldn't be last on the list with Labor, and we have decided to put them in a similar position.Now who was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party when that deal was done? It was Mr Kim Beazley.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Kim Beazley was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. The journalist went on to say:Well, their candidate just said that they agreed to put you above the Liberal Party on the basis that your party said you were going to give them a higher preference than in previous years.And this was the miserable, skulking reply of the Australian Labor Party candidate, Ross Free:That is a discussion that has taken place with others. I am concerned with what is happening on the ground.I will tell you what was happening on the ground. They were defecting in their thousands to Jackie Kelly—that is what was happening on the ground. You have no credibility to lecture me on this subject.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has finished his answer. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent. There is no obligation on the chair to direct a minister to answer in any particular fashion.35653565Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Ask him about Queensland.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Tell us how the Howard government has destroyed—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—In light of the excellent answer to the last question, my question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline to the House how the economic policies of the government have contributed security for all Australians in the midst of economic and political turmoil throughout the Asian region? Are there any threats posed to security by alternative economic policies?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Could I take a point of order, Mr Speaker?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, this question is clearly asking for an expression of opinion and should be ruled out of order under section 44.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think that even the honourable member for Calwell will admit that it is the subject of some interest in light of press reports over the weekend.3565Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, this is not a question of opinion; it is a question of unassailable fact. My government has provided Australians with security, safety and stability, and my government has provided a level of economic management and a degree of economic management that has effectively fireproofed the Australian economy against the impact of what is happening in Asia.If you think that be the rhetoric of a political leader, let me quote from a press release from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry dated 25 May that was handed to me during question time. Mr Paterson is talking about a survey, and this is the headline—and, might I say, a very apt headline:Australian economy continues to expand in spite of crisis in Asia.On behalf of the most comprehensive business organisation in Australia, he was giving a comprehensive endorsement of the economic policies of my government. In the body of the press release he says:The most important result of this survey is that it demonstrates that business confidence remains strong even with the Asian crisis deeply affecting so many of our trading partners.Mr Speaker, that is no accident. That has happened because of the policies that we deliberately followed when we were elected more than two years ago. That has happened because we decided to tackle the Keating-Beazley debt that we inherited. That has happened because we turned the $10½ billion deficit into a $2.7 billion surplus. That has happened because we have given Australia the lowest inflation rate for 30 years. That has happened because we have given home buyers and small businessmen the lowest interest rates for 30 years. That has happened because we have been prepared to undertake industrial relations reform, including reform on the Australian waterfront—and I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on his efforts on that account. That reform is necessary because it is good for Australia's long-term interests.It was no surprise to me—and it will have been no surprise to those who sit behind me and to fair-minded people in the Australian community—that, according to all the surveys undertake after it, the federal budget that has just been brought down received an emphatic endorsement on the score of economic management from the Australian people.The Australian people know a good budget when they see it. The Australian people know a budget that is directed to the interests of mainstream Australia when they see it. The Australian people know a budget that grabs hold of a problem that the government bringing down the budget inherited and did some thing about. The fact is that if we had not done what we have done over the last 2¼ years in managing the Australian economy we would now be weaker, more vulnerable, more scared and more at the mercy of the events in the Asia-Pacific region. Our economic management has delivered safety, security and stability. The Australian people know it. So, incidentally, do those who sit opposite.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker356635663566Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You leave Hansard alone. We are happy where they are!AE4Mr NEHL—I can still make that appointment for you, Daryl. My question is directed to you, Mr Speaker, particularly in your role as the protector of the rights of all members of this House. I refer to two aspects of the system of validation of members arriving in—or departing from—Canberra in relation to travelling allowance. I refer, in particular, to those of us who might from time to time drive from our home to Canberra. In fact, I drove from Coffs Harbour to Canberra yesterday.DT4CREANMr Crean—Ask Sharpie how he did it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.AE4Mr NEHL—One thing that concerns me is that when I leave on Friday it would appear that I will have to drive from where I stay in Queanbeyan to Parliament House to sign out or clock off—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.AE4Mr NEHL—Members of the opposition might recall that they sometimes drive too. That drive would add an additional 35 minutes at least to the duration of my journey home. That is the first aspect.The second aspect is the form that has been provided to members and senators to clock on with. In part, it says:I agree to adhere to directions of the management. I agree to show this card when purchasing liquor—I am sorry, that is a strike through over the label. It also makes reference to honorary members. The only honorary members of this place that I have ever been aware of were senior members of the ACTU when Labor was in government. It refers to temporary members—Mr Melham interjecting—AE4Mr NEHL—I think the member for Banks might be a temporary member.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is drivel.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent. What is the question, the honourable member?AE4Mr NEHL—Mr Speaker, I just want to make the point to you and to all members that I think it is inappropriate that members and senators, when registering for their travel, should use some form of cast-off registered club label. I ask: is this the best we can do?3567Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member for Cowper would be aware that those arrangements are now under the control of the Minister for Finance and Administration. I shall refer the question to him and ask that he respond through me so that all members will be aware of the response.Personal Explanations356715:27:003567Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—During question time the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) accused me of deliberately misleading the Treasurer (Mr Costello). I quote from the transcript of the interview between the Treasurer and Alan Jones on 21 May:Alan Jones: Aren't there too many Peter Costellos and Alan Joneses going into doctors' surgeries and public hospitals every day for nothing?Mr Costello: Yeah. Well, I think this is one of the problems—that we have said to people, `You can have medical care for free.' The Prime Minister also went on to accuse me of conducting a scare campaign on this issue. I point out to the House that if this government is re-elected it is quite clear that Medicare will be axed, because the undertakings they have given can be quite simply broken the next day.Questions to the Speaker356735673567Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question is to you, Mr Speaker, under standing order 150. It concerns question 2196 in my name on the Notice Paper , placed there on 3 September 1997. Addressed to the Prime Minister of this country, it requests his never-ever statement to confirm or deny a GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not sure that that is a question to me; I think it might be more a question to the Prime Minister. But if you ask it, I will respond.7T4Mrs CROSIO—It is a question under 150.3567Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I accept the honourable member's direction. I thought you were asking me the question. I shall write as requested.356710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:3567361494K4 4K6 MG4 KK6Anderson John MP; Causley Ian MP; Lee Michael MP; McDougall Graeme MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, decisions by the Howard Government to prohibit use of the term `drug free' in describing and advertising vitamin and herbal remedies.The decision will disadvantage all Australians who use or provide alternate and complementary health products. It is discriminatory.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse this decision immediately.Mr Anderson4K4Mr Anderson(from 10 citizens)Mr Causley4K6Mr Causley(from 75 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 36,042 citizens)Mr McDougallKK6Mr McDougall(from 22 citizens)35684191LS4 ZD4 MG4 MK6Ferguson Martin MP; Howard John MP; Lee Michael MP; Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully bring to your attention their concern about the privatisation of the NSW Adult Migrant English Service which they believe will be to the detriment of refugees and migrants who have used this service of acknowledged high quality for 50 years.Your petitioners therefore request that the House urgently review the decision with a view to ensuring that the Service is retained and that the combined experience of the staff and the resources continue to be available to serve the needs of refugees and migrants in New South Wales.Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson(from 4,086 citizens)Mr HowardZD4Mr Howard(from 39 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 57 citizens)Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from nine citizens)3568985A5 HH4 MK6Brown Bob MP; Jenkins Harry MP; Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition of the undersigned shows that: The Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable. Fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs. The Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs. The Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament:make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 21 citizens)Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 63 citizens)Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 14 citizens)3568188SD4 MG4 XK6Cadman Alan MP; Lee Michael MP; West Andrea MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regard ing the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of the legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail fair competition by restricting permissible statements in advertising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Mr CadmanSD4Mr Cadman(from 147 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 31 citizens)Mrs WestXK6Mrs West(from 10 citizens)356853HK5 3H4Andrews Kevin MP; Halverson Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal;3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points. Your petitioners therefore request that the House acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Mr AndrewsHK5Mr Andrews(from seven citizens)Mr Halverson3H4Mr Halverson(from 46 citizens)35691302ET4 MG4Bevis Arch MP; Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continued changes of policy on Medicare/Medibank—particularly the closure of the Coorparoo Medicare/Medibank office and other such offices.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Medicare/Medibank offices are re-opened and made available to all residents who have the need to use such offices.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will forever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 87 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 1,215 citizens)3569131EZ5Abbott Tony MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the hardship and uncertainty that the proposed increased charges for nursing homes will have on the elderly people of Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House act upon this urgent request from the people of Australia and seek a commitment from the government to withdraw aged care reforms and to develop a National Strategy on Ageing.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr AbbottEZ5Mr Abbott(from 131 citizens)356923MD4Baldwin Peter MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that many Australians are concerned about the potential for the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment to have an adverse affect on Australia. We are concerned that the negotiations have been carried out in secret, and that exemptions requested by the Australian government have not been made public.Further, we are concerned about the impact of the proposed agreement on vulnerable developing economies which would be opened to greater exploitation.Your Petitioners ask that the House of Representatives should:1. make information widely available immediately regarding the content of the MAI, and the exemptions requested by the Australian government;2. ask the Joint Standing Committee for Treaties to conduct an immediate inquiry into the implications for Australian interests of the MAI;3. refuse to sign the MAI unless it is conclusively proven that it does not diminish the ability of Australian Governments to protect labour standards, the environment, and to regulate foreign investment consistent with social justice objectives and national interest.Mr Peter BaldwinMD4Mr Peter Baldwin(from 23 citizens)3569148ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—particularly the financial impact these changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 148 citizens)356989ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these charges be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payments or extra daily fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 89 citizens)357084ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the Howard Government's unfair and hurtful changes affecting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and purchase of pharmaceutical products. These changes include: increasing the co-payment for PSB Health Card holders from $2.70 to $3.20; increasing the PBS co-payment for Australian families from $17.40 to $20.00; the introduction of a new `drugs tax' through the Therapeutic Group Premium plan, which will force up to 2,000,000 Australians to pay more for the latest, safest and most effective medication in key areas—such as treatment for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, ulcers and depression; the removal in recent years of many drugs and medications altogether from the PBS list.Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to reverse their changes to pharmaceuticals and the PBS, which will particularly hurt low income, elderly and sick members of our community.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 84 citizens)357058ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the harsh and regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow telecommunications carriers to charge timed local calls for data communication services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure will adversely effect business and individual users of the above services, and particularly hamper the operations and growth of small business.Your petitioners call on the House to request that the Howard Government rescind their decision, and ensure local data communication services are charged on an untimed basis.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 58 citizens)357028ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland calls to the attention of the house the Howard Government's proposed changes to nursing homes and aged care, which includes charging an entry fee or bond for entry into nursing homes. The Government's proposals are unfair and will discriminate against the most vulnerable, frail and sick members of our community.We request the House to call on the Howard Government to abandon their plans and to immediately restore full funding for capital assistance to nursing homes.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 28 citizens)357018ET4Bevis Arch MPA petition to the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia:This petition of certain residents of the Australian community affirms our commitment to a culturally diverse Australian society which is unified by a common desire to see all Australians—regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or ability—treated with respect and dignity.We recognise the contribution that all Australians have made to the cultural, social and economic development of our nation, and reject the views expressed by Pauline Hanson as divisive and not based in fact.In recognition of the need to debate these issues honestly and publicly, we request the House to call upon the Federal Government to mount a high profile anti-racism campaign (for which funds were provided in the 1996-97 budget) and fulfil its obligations to build and maintain a harmonious and united Australia.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 18 citizens)35701086DT4Crean Simon MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the dumping of cheap Indonesian paper that is currently flooding the Australian market. This has caused massive stock piles of unsold paper in local mills. One Mill, the Shoalhaven Paper Mill, has been forced to close for two weeks.We also draw the House's attention to the effect that this is having on employment in regional areas like the Shoalhaven. 400 jobs at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill are at risk if the dumping of cheap paper continues.We the undesigned request the House to act quickly to protect local industries from the dumping of cheap Indonesian paper.Mr CreanDT4Mr Crean(from 1,086 citizens)35712547T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the widespread opposition which exists in western Sydney over the planned development of a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek; the damage to people's health and quality of life that will accompany such a development, and the Federal Government's failure to seriously re-examine other alternative and more suitable sites for an airport outside the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Federal Government to discontinue its plans to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek and that it immediately begins a serious re-examination of the suitable airport sites outside the Sydney basin.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 254 citizens)35715427K6Entsch Warren MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of residents of Cooktown and surrounding district, in the federal electorate of Leichhardt, draw to the attention of the House that an Australia Post Ballot was held in 1997 to gauge residents support for door to door mail delivery. We the petitioners believe that many residents were not well informed and that the format of the Ballot did not accurately reflect the residents choice of service.Your petitioners therefore request the House to support the wishes for a door to door mail delivery service in Cooktown.Mr Entsch7K6Mr Entsch(from 542 citizens)357163HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House community anger over the backward stance of the current Federal Government on the environment. The decision to mine uranium at Jabiluka is a symbol of this government's preference for `development at any cost', and the failure of the government to protect the Kakadu World Heritage Area has destroyed Australia's international reputation as a leader in environmental protection.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call on the Government to reverse its decision in light of further environmental assessments that confirms the potential of the mine to impact on the wilderness and world heritage values of Kakadu National Park.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 63 citizens)357132K26Latham Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for all Australians.Mr LathamK26Mr Latham(from 32 citizens)35717983XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.For permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and for the implementation of tree plantation strategies.This petition from the undersigned respectfully points out that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people, to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus complying with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention to which Australia is a signatory. We have a responsibility to future and present generations, and the necessary reasons, knowledge and technology to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives legislate to: immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests; ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests and critical habitats of endangered species; facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests, to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands, using non-toxic methods to protect ecological sustainability; maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using appropriate forestry techniques and progressive minimal-waste processing methods, such as radial sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products; support incentives for nationwide employment in composting, soil remineralisation programs, and the planting programs of trees and annual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants; encourage sensitively-managed, environmental education tourism in appropriate forest areas, with full respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred sites and other sites of significance; and progressively utilise technological expertise and resources transferred from the military sector, to help implement these tree planting solutions; and to motivate the international community to follow this example.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 7,983 citizens)3572165MG4Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled.We the undersigned residents of Australia draw the attention of the House to a promise made by the Liberal and National parties namely that "The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation". We point out that the Honourable the Minister for Communications has foreshadowed presenting to the House Appropriation Bills which will substantially reduce the funding appropriated by the Parliament to the ABC.Your petitioners therefore request that the House resolve to restore the ABC's funding base to its pre-1996/97 Budget level and index it to ensure that it is maintained in real terms.Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 165 citizens)357298MG4Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the House the importance of preserving high quarantine standards to maintain Australia's clean food reputation and to protect native wildlife. Your petitioners therefore request—That the House call on the Federal Government to maintain the ban on cooked chicken meat imports because of the threat it poses to Australia's chicken meat industry, and the risk of introducing diseases which would threaten native bird life.Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 98 citizens)35723006VH4McArthur Stewart MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House their serious concern about funding for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).In particular the petitioners wish to point out:1. The disproportionate cuts to ABC funding since 1985-6 which has seen Gross Domestic Product rise by 14.4 per cent in real terms while ABC funding has declined by 25.3 per cent.2. The latest budget cuts have cost the ABC approximately 700 jobs and substantially weakened its capacity to adequately discharge its charter.3. There has been a significant decline in the capacity of Radio Australia to represent Australia abroad.Your petitioners therefore request that the House take steps:1. To reverse the decline in ABC funding, and,2. Help restore the capacity of Radio Australia by re-commissioning the Cox Peninsula transmitter, and,3. Ensure that the ABC has adequate funds to allow it to digitise its operations.Mr McArthurVH4Mr McArthur(from 3,006 citizens)357276BI4Miles Chris MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:that we consider illicit drugs to be one of the biggest social problems confronting young people and families;that many families are suffering extreme hurt and pain because of the drug trade;that many young people are not reaching their full potential due to drug addiction;we commend the Federal Government for its $87.5 million National Illicit Drug Strategy;Your petitioners therefore request the House to: continue to do everything possible to combat illicit drug use and trafficking in Australia.Mr MilesBI4Mr Miles(from 76 citizens)3573188HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled in Parliament:The undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at the Federal Government's reduction of the quality and the affordability of childcare services.Fees have risen by up to $25 at some childcare centres and families are facing increased hardships in trying to meet the extra charges.The Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether, so reducing family income and making it more difficult for families to make ends meet.Some parents are being forced to choose `backyard care' which puts their children at risk.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House call on the Howard Government to restore as a matter of urgency the funds cut from childcare services and ensure that adequate and quality care is available to all Australian families.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 188 citizens)3573147HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of certain electors of the Division of Shortland draws to the attention of the House that residents of the East Lake Macquarie area would suffer serious difficulty and inconvenience if the Belmont Medicare office is closed.Your petitioners request the House to require the government to ensure that Belmont Medicare office remains open.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 147 citizens)357395HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at the Howard Government's decision to close Belmont Medicare Office. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office will cause serious difficulty and hardship to the residents of the East Lake Macquarie area, especially to lower-income and less-able residents.Residents will no longer be able to get immediate cash refunds of doctors fees to enable them to purchase required pharmaceuticals from nearby pharmacies and will thereby be unfairly disadvantaged.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House call on the Howard Government to reverse its decision to close Belmont Medicare Office and to cease its dismantling of Medicare Services.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 95 citizens)35732234V5Moylan Judi MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the practices and policies of the Taliban against Afghan women and girls. We urge the Taliban to immediately cease its gender apartheid, and allow Afghan women to work outside their homes, earn income, and access the Afghan society's education, health and other resources. We urge the Taliban to respect Afghan women's rights to education, to safety and the sharing of public spaces, and to public mobility. We further urge the Taliban to lift the forced veiling and imposed dress code policy against women, and to uphold the human rights of Afghan women and men as accorded to them under Islamic constitutional laws.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to hold the Taliban accountable to uphold and respect the human, civil and political rights of Afghan women, girls and men; to withhold recognition of the Taliban; to oppose Taliban access to the UN seat; and to oppose donor assistance. We ask that economic transactions be conditional upon the respect of the Taliban towards the Afghan people and particularly the human rights of women and girls.Mrs Moylan4V5Mrs Moylan(from 223 citizens)357379RW5Nelson Dr Brendan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the deleterious effects of legalised gambling on the fabric of society, especially the adverse impact of unrestrained gambling on stable family life, and draws to the attention of the House the potential for serious family disruption once facilities for both banking and gambling become available in an increasing number of Australian homes.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will enact appropriate banking and communications legislation that will have the effect of limiting the harm that citizens can bring to themselves and to their families in the event that gambling within the home setting is not only legalised but promoted.Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson(from 79 citizens)3574394CE4O'Keefe Neil MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the need for a Medicare facility in the Sunbury township.Currently the residents of Sunbury have to travel long distances or have to wait weeks to receive their Medicare rebates. We definitely see the provision of a full Medicare Office as a preferred option, but would accept the establishment of a Medicare agency as a limited but acceptable alternative.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urge the Government to urgently provide a Medicare facility in Sunbury.Mr O'KeefeCE4Mr O'Keefe(from 394 citizens)3574170V5Slipper Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we strongly object to the Government signing the treaty known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.The MAI document requires far more discussion and understanding by the citizens that has been allowed for and we request that you advise the Government that it is OUR WILL that no measures be taken to implement the Multilateral Agreement on Investment without referendum of the citizens of Australia, and that no action is taken to give effect to this treaty by means of the H.R. and E.O.C. Act section 47(1).Your petitioners therefore request the House to remove the Multilateral Agreement on Investment from further passage in the House until such a referendum has been taken.Mr Slipper0V5Mr Slipper(from 17 citizens)3574784SK6Smith Tony MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the unfair and inadequate system of assessing and collecting child support by the Child Support Agency.Your petitioners therefore pray the House completely overhaul the Child Support system and the Child Support Agency with the establishment of a fair and just procedure that is based ono the needs of the child and the capacity to pay of both parents.Mr Tony SmithSK6Mr Tony Smith(from 784 citizens)3574114SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Lyne draws to the attention of the House the strong case for funding to expand SBS Television services to the Lower Mid-North Coast through a transmitter on the National Transmission Agency site at Middle Brother Mountain, north of Taree.We the undersigned ask the House to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Communications so that he may pursue the matter as a high priority as part of the Federal Government's expansion program of SBS Television services across Australia.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 114 citizens)3574422VK6Vale Danna MPPetition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentNo nuclear reactor or waste reprocessing plant in Sutherland ShireI strongly oppose construction of a nuclear reactor and/or nuclear waste reprocessing plant in Sydney. Nuclear activity generates radioactive emissions and radioactive waste for which Australia has no repository. A nuclear accident has implications for all of Sydney. Such facilities should not be located in Australia's largest city.Your petitioners pray that the House will join them in opposing increased nuclear activity in Sydney.Mrs ValeVK6Mrs Vale(from 422 citizens)3574373VK6Vale Danna MPPetition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentNo nuclear-waste reprocessing plant in Sutherland Shire.I strongly oppose construction of a nuclear-waste reprocessing plant in Sydney's Sutherland Shire. Such a plant would be a health hazard to residents, would send radioactive waste into coastal waters, and would accumulate reprocessed radioactive waste for which Australia has no repository.Your petitioners pray that the House will join them in opposing this plant.Mrs ValeVK6Mrs Vale(from 373 citizens)3575521ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 521 citizens)357582ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:(1) That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore, your petitioners request the House to:establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.(2) We support the action of the Mayor and Council of Concord in demanding that the new flight paths over the Municipality of Concord should cease immediately and the government honours its pre-election promise limiting the implementation of new flight paths.(3) Citizens of Concord demand that the federal government addresses its responsibility to provide for proper air services with minimal impact on residential areas.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 82 citizens)3575181ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the state of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House our concerns at the withdrawal of the operational subsidies to community-based non-profit child care centres that has resulted in a reduction of enrolments, a substantial increase in fees, a reduction in staff and/or staff hours, cuts to staff training and/or replacement of staff with lower qualified staff and other similar deleterious effects too numerous to mention in this petition.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reinstate the operational subsidies at the May 1998 Budget.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 181 citizens)3575175ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the state of NSW draws to the attention of the House our concerns at the rumours circulating that the operational subsidies for Family Day Care Centres are to be removed at the May Budget, and also call for the retention of the operational subsidies to Outside School Hours Child Care Centres, due to be removed at the end of April 1998.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 175 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business3575357515:35:003575Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I move:That this House:(1) endorses the Government's progressive immigration policy and its emphasis on skilled immigrants which creates additional demand for goods and services and community infrastructure and the consequent employment opportunities that it brings;(2) supports the Government in building community confidence in an immigration program that reflects the needs of the Australian economy while also recognising that there remains a requirement for family reunions; and(3) agrees that immigration has played a positive role in the building of the Australian population and nation since the Second World War.In the 1990s, immigration has become a polarising rather than a unifying issue in Australia. In the decades of the fifties, sixties and seventies, Australians seemed more willing to welcome migrants. The peddling of anti-immigration sentiments in some political parties—like the Australian Democrats, the Greens, Australians Against Further Immigration and lunar right groups such as the Confederate Action Party and the One Nation Party—has had a damaging effect on the way Australians think about immigration.Some of these groups base their prejudice on an environmental perspective, others on a racist perspective, and still others on a misunderstanding of the economic effects of different types of immigration on the Australian economy. In many cases, they have used the insecurity of Australians about their jobs and their futures to try to destroy our immigration program.In a newspoll published in the Australian in October 1996, support for immigration was shown to be at a low ebb. Only 20 per cent believed the level of immigration was `about right', with two per cent wanting more migrants. A whopping 71 per cent said immigration was `too high', and, of those, 52 per cent said it was `a lot too high'. Understanding the reasons for this shift in public sentiment is important. It has at its heart insecurity and unfamiliarity with change. There are many who believe that the massive immigration in the 1950s and 1960s was a positive, nation-building exercise that set Australia on a stable and prosperous economic course and ensured our continuing survival under the idea of populate or perish. There is no reason why Australian citizens cannot be convinced again of the overwhelming benefits of a balanced immigration policy through a rational argument countering the views of the `no more room' brigade.Since 1945, 5½ million people have decided to make Australia their new home—including the seconder for my motion, the member for Deakin (Mr Barresi), who is the second male of Italian background to be elected to the national parliament, and the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro), who is the first female of Italian background to be elected to the national parliament—and nearly three million children have been born in Australia with one or both parents born overseas. Immigration has provided over 45 per cent of our population increase since 1947.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What about Al Grassby and Con Sciacca?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I said Con Sciacca was the first. Al Grassby's background might be slightly more dubious than Con Sciacca and the member for Deakin.In explaining immigration, it is important to understand the truth about its economic effects. Most studies on the effects of immigration conclude that it has either a marginal or a neutral effect on the Australian economy. The unemployment rate, inflation, average incomes, budget deficit, foreign debt, gross domestic product and gross domestic product per person are not adversely affected by a balanced immigration program.The much quoted economic study of immigration by William Foster of the department of immigration found that immigration has little or no effect relative to the host of other influences that affect the national economy. Mr Foster stated:In generating this virtually unprecedented demographic and economic expansion, immigration has had only very marginal consequences, if any, for the key indicators of economic well-being . . .The consequences specifically of immigration can be regarded as of little or no practical significance.A report entitled Understanding economics and immigration by Dr Lynne Williams of the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research analysed the effect of immigration on the economy. She wrote:At the macro-economic economy-wide level, most of the evidence suggests that immigration can serve as a slightly positive, or at worst neutral effect on the economy. Of importance for policy-makers is the consensus that: . immigration does not lead to an increase in the unemployment rate;. immigration has little effect on both prices and wages;. immigration has relatively little effect on the balance of payments, in the long run; and. in the longer run, immigrants are net contributors to commonwealth and local government revenues.She concluded:At the general or aggregate level, the complexity and balance of the effects suggest strong positive or negative views on the economic effects of immigration are hard to justify.Finally, to drive the point home, in the words of Phil Ruthven of Ibis Business Information:The accepted truth is that for every new immigrant family that enters the country, four new jobs are created for the first four years they are here because of their consumption of services and infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, sewerage, roads and, of course, housing. Immigration, axiomatically, lowers unemployment.There are enough studies and plenty of evidence in support of immigration's positives to corner those who mouth the `immigration always has a negative effect on employment' argument. It is used solely for political reasons.In the last years of the former government, the ALP moved the migrant intake towards family reunion and away from the skilled component. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that migrants entering Australia under the family reunion category bring less benefits to their adopted country than skilled migrants. It can be argued that a program that is weighted in favour of potentially welfare dependent, lower skilled and therefore harder to employ immigrants in contrast to skilled, better educated and younger people has few benefits and is more potentially negative for the economy.Labor failed to understand these crucial differences. In 1995-96, six out of eight immigrants coming to Australia came through family reunion or humanitarian means. In fact, the shadow minister at the table, the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), had cause to give a speech on this matter not so long ago. However, unfortunately for the Labor Party, he portrayed quite contrasting views to those put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) at the Australia Unlimited conference in Sydney about two weeks ago. Members on the other side of the House do not seem to have got their act together with respect to exactly where they stand on immigration. The Leader of the Opposition was making the claim at the Australia Unlimited conference that the Labor party welcomed immigrants from all backgrounds—unskilled, skilled and family reunion; whereas the member for Batman was saying in this House not so long ago that he did not welcome unskilled migrants because he believed that they took Australians' jobs. He might elucidate on that perhaps later in the debate.In a Sydney Morning Herald poll in June 1996, over 60 per cent of respondents believed that the immigration program was skewed in favour of family reunion. It is easy to see why. A study conducted by the federal Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in 1997 found that 78 per cent of skilled migrants operated their own businesses of which 62 per cent were exporting—with 12 per cent of those exporting more than $1 million annually—and 23 per cent sold import replacing goods and services in Australia.It is this very push for skilled migrants that will restore public confidence in a sensible immigration program. The government is building public confidence in the immigration program through a growing emphasis on skills, but there are other changes that will help ensure a more balanced immigration intake. For example, we have tightened family reunion eligibility, including a tougher spouse reunion test; we are placing a greater emphasis on proficiency in English, employment skills and age in setting pass marks and have extended the list of occupations requiring English; we have placed caps on the number of family entry classes; and we give applications from sponsors who are Australian citizens priority in order to reward the commitment that is demonstrated by becoming an Australian citizen.The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that the population of Australia will grow to 23 million in the next 25 to 35 years and then stabilise of that level. A report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Long-Term Strategies in 1994 found that the level of population a country of Australia's resources could sustain would probably be around 30 million. If we are to have an immigration program that sensibly adds to population growth, then we need to explain why a growing population is desirable and how immigration policy can help achieve that outcome.The population of the developing world is estimated to be six billion. Many of the world's developed nations have become integral parts of trading blocs such as the EU and NAFTA. Australia's rural and resource commodities are a significant part of world trade. They secure for us a role on the world and regional stages. Australia continues to be seen as important to its allies in Europe, North America and Asia, because since World War II we have grown economically and maintained our status and economic power. This is particularly so in our own region.If by 2025 we have chosen to stabilise our population, we will have altered Australia's place in the world and in the region, and not for the better. We will more and more have to rely on our allies in trade matters to press our case for the opening of markets and other global reforms. If we are serious about developing our role in APEC and about genuine engagement with the Asian region, then we need to be an energetic economic power. We will not succeed by being isolationist. Nobody in our region or in the world owes it to Australia to help us keep up. The only people who are interested in our welfare and our future are ourselves. We must at this time take every opportunity to build our nation rather than follow a path of selfish stagnation. I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—I am pleased to second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak.15:45:003578Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I am confident that the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) will not be surprised to hear me say that I rise in support of his excellent motion and want to commend him for putting it before the House. Even if not voted upon, private members motions give this parliament an excellent opportunity to express its views on matters that are important to not only the national community but also the international community. I am also confident that if the motion of the member for Sturt was put to a vote in this House it would receive the overwhelming support of members on all sides. I can be very confident that not one member of the Australian Labor Party would choose not to support the motion. That was not always the case with the Australian Labor Party. I for one am not proud of our history in terms of immigration and our long ago adherence to the White Australia policy and the way in which we treated it as sacrosanct. Unfortunately, there remains out there in the community a lot of concern over immigration. If I were to conduct an anonymous poll in my electorate of all eligible voters, I think that an overwhelming majority of people would express some concern over the direction of our immigration policy. That indicates a growing need for the government to do more to educate Australians, to better sell the benefits of immigration, to explain that, without it, our population levels would be falling, and to explain that a well balanced immigration program creates jobs in this country rather than displaces Australian workers. In other words, we need to make Australians more comfortable about our immigration program and have confidence in it. What will not foster that confidence is headlines in newspapers all around the country, such as we saw last December, headlines indicating that Australian workers in the Hunter Valley are being displaced by Korean workers here on working visas. Not too many in this place would be familiar with the chicken sexing trade. Chicken sexers determine the sex of day-old chicks and that is an important process within the growing and processing industry. In December last year the six chicken sexers who are contracted to Steggles, some of whom had provided the company with an excellent service for more than 20 years, learnt that they were going to be replaced by Korean nationals who are here on working visas; four-year working visas, I might add. The company's modus operandi was to offer the Australian workers an employment contract offering a rate of pay just half of that which they had been earning. The Koreans, the company claimed, were here only to provide training. This was the basis on which the department of immigration had approved the visas—on the basis that the Koreans were coming here to fill what the act defines as a key position. That key position was that of a trainer. They were here supposedly to lift the skills of existing Australian workers.Yet the company and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) now concede that four of the five Koreans have poor English language skills. We also know that, six months down the track, not one day of training has taken place at Steggles. Because the majority of the company's former Australian sexers were not prepared to sign a contract which paid them half of what they had been enjoying, what has occurred is that Australian workers have been displaced by Korean workers here on visitors visas or working visas.The Chicken Sexers Association has legal advice to the effect that Steggles might have acted fraudulently when applying for the visas. I am not drawing any conclusions on that, but the minister is in a position to draw a conclusion because he has the application forms. He knows on what basis Steggles proposed that these people should qualify for a working visa. He should come into this parliament and share those details with us. Six months down the track, from the day Australian workers learnt that they were to be displaced by Korean workers, four Australian chicken sexers no longer work for Steggles. Korean workers on visas are doing the work of the former Australian workers less efficiently but for half the rate of pay the Australian workers had previously enjoyed, and, as I said, not one day of training has occurred.Steggles simply has done this: they have replaced Australian workers with Korean workers on working visas. Some of those displaced workers are constituents of the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin). What does he say? He says that Koreans are not being used as a cheap source of labour because the former contractors were offered the same rate of pay as the Koreans. Where is the logic in that? The member for Paterson is saying that you bring in overseas labour, offer them half the rate of pay that the incumbents are enjoying and then offer that same rate to the incumbents, and he wants us to believe that Australian workers are not being disadvantaged, that it is supply and demand in this industry, as in any other industry. There would not be an opportunity for Steggles to offer that position at half the rate of pay if they did not have as a tool, as leverage, Korean workers willing to take those positions at that rate. It is very simple. So then the member for Paterson tries to climb out of an appalling political situation by claiming that the former Labor government did it too. He accused the former Labor government of allowing Asian workers in on working visas to work in a poultry facility in Tamworth two years ago.He is wrong because there was a proposition two years ago to allow that to occur but, thankfully, the then member for Paterson, Mr Horne, moved very quickly and convinced the minister of the day to scuttle the plan. Once again the member for Paterson has failed to offer his constituents adequate representation. Six months down the track, despite all his posturing, Koreans on working visas are doing the work formerly undertaken by Australian workers.There is an analogy to be drawn here between this incident and what has happened on the waterfront. At least on the waterfront the union labour was replaced by Australian workers. That is not something I find any joy in, but at least they were Australian workers. What has happened at Steggles is that Australian workers have been displaced by Korean workers here on working visas.We have to ask ourselves this: if they were here only to train Australian workers to make them more efficient, why then was the visa given for four years, given that a training course at most would take 12 months? The minister and the member for Paterson who has been defending Steggles on this issue should also explain why no labour market testing was undertaken prior to the issuing of the visas to determine whether there were Australian workers capable of filling the positions being given to the Koreans. That is a requirement of the act. They should also tell us why there has been no training undertaken at Steggles, which was part of the terms of the issuing of the visa.The government's handling of this matter is hardly conducive to instilling confidence in the community in our immigration program. In a letter dated 14 May, Minister Ruddock tells us that he has investigated the matter and is satisfied that the Steggles arrangements are consistent with the regulatory provisions of the category. I am not so sure; nor are those people who have been displaced, who have been thrown out of their jobs in the Hunter. Minister Ruddock should come into this place and share with us the results of his inquiry, and he should exercise his power under the act to suspend those visas until a full public inquiry is undertaken.Concern in this country about immigration is based on a lot of myths: myths about how immigration affects employment, myths about disease coming into the country, myths about new immigrants being given special handouts. They are all myths and we must put them to rest. What is not a myth is the fact that in a region with an unemployment rate of more than 11 per cent Australian workers have been displaced by Korean workers. (Time expired)15:55:003580Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am very pleased to speak in support of this motion moved by the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne). I thank, in principle, the support of the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) for this motion, even though for most of his time he strayed from the actual motion that has been put by the member for Sturt. I know that many on this side would have been pleased to speak in support, particularly my colleague the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro) who, like me, has an inherent interest in all immigration issues.In the electorate of the member for Sturt, as in mine, there are significant numbers of immigrants who have embraced this country and the Australian way of life. Of course the immigration program must have credibility in the eyes of the Australian population. The member for Hunter spoke a little on this issue of credibility, but I must say that an immigration program must also have integrity, compassion and balance the interests of Australia and at the same time meet our international responsibilities by allowing healthy numbers of immigrants to settle in our land.It is that integrity, compassion and balance that was missing in the previous 13 years, which led to the program under Labor sadly going astray. Those despots of deficit and debt who occupied these benches for 13 years created economic hardship in the community and still, out of a blind adherence to a special interest, they pursued social programs that lost favour with the people. Their immigration program centred around buying the support of ethnic groups and, in turn, using the ethnic vote for personal branch stacking purposes, as we have seen. I am sure the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) will certainly be most aggrieved by that process taking place in the part of Melbourne which he occupies.Just this morning we had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) blaming this side of politics for the success of One Nation in Queensland pre-election polls. One Nation is isolationist, protectionist, narrow-minded and self-serving—characteristics it shares with the Australian Labor Party. That is only natural given that One Nation is the unwanted love child of the ALP, born out of policies that divided the Australian people. Rather than blaming Rob Borbidge and the Prime Minister, John Howard, for the legitimacy given to One Nation, they should look in the mirror and say, `Sorry—mea culpa, mea culpa.' Of course, like their tax promises, will they say, `My fault, sorry,' or will they go to the Australian public and say, `Trust us. We are from the Australian Labor Party'?Since the coalition came to office we have restored balance and integrity to the immigration program. Just as importantly, we have begun to restore the public confidence that was lost under Labor. I will say one thing to the member for Batman: my record in terms of criticising One Nation cannot be discounted. By placing a greater emphasis on skilled immigration we are ensuring that those who came here find their niche quickly. Many of these skilled immigrants have skills and knowledge which can prove invaluable in providing economic and social prosperity for all Australians.Some sections of the ethnic press recently reported that Labor will cut skilled immigration in favour of family reunion. With the flip-flop policy stance of the Leader of the Opposition, we do not know whether Labor is being honest or merely pandering to another special interest. The coalition maintains a strong commitment to family reunion but has stopped the blatant abuse that flourished under Labor. Conditions placed on spouses and intended spouses have been tightened and monitored. These are initiatives which are welcomed by the Australian people.I thank the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, who recently visited my electorate. He put to rest many of those concerns fuelled by the fears and misconceptions brought about by Labor's immigration policies. I also thank the minister for finally bringing to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne the resources which were much needed for migrant settlement—resources which were only directed towards Melbourne's west and Melbourne's north under 13 years of the Australian Labor Party. I am very pleased to be able to support the member for Sturt in this motion. I commend him and I know that, on balance, the immigration program will mean greater prosperity and confidence for all Australians. (Time expired)16:00:003581Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I am pleased to be able to speak on this motion and, in part, to address paragraph (1) of the motion, which endorses the government's progressive immigration policy and its emphasis on skilled immigrants. I want to raise a few concerns about that particular part of the motion.I am concerned at the failure of this government to provide for training and retraining of Australians before encouraging and allowing the migration of skilled workers. This is a serious and developing problem to which I hope the government will give some attention. So far we have seen no indication of that. In fact, we have seen significant cuts to university funding, for example, and increased costs to students undertaking study and training. We have seen reductions in university enrolments as a result, particularly amongst mature aged students and those undertaking study in engineering and science—areas where skill shortages are emerging. We have also seen major cuts to funding for apprenticeships and traineeships. For example, the number of apprenticeship commencements has fallen by more than 5,000 since Labor's last full year in office—from 49,500 to 44,100. In the same report—which incidentally comes from the government—the rate of growth in traineeships has also fallen, from 146 per cent in Labor's last year in office to just 61 per cent in Howard's first year. So there have been cuts to both funding and enrolments for apprenticeships and traineeships. We have also seen very massive cuts to labour market programs—with some $1.8 billion slashed—and there are now very limited opportunities for skills upgrades and retraining amongst those who are unemployed. As a result, we have seen a drop in the amount of skilled labour, especially in states like my own, Western Australia, where we have a so-called resources boom.Simultaneously, unemployment remains very high—over 13 per cent in parts of Fremantle—and it is even higher amongst the long-term unemployed and the young. Yet, as I said earlier, there are skill shortages and this government has been making it easier for employers to recruit labour from overseas without proper checks on local availability. That is my key point: it is done without proper checks on local availability. It is often cheaper for employers to recruit from overseas, but there is evidence already that there is a real risk of creating an underclass of guest workers.DEETYA's latest Job Futures report from April shows shortages in Western Australia, for example, in engineering, nursing, allied health, maths and science teaching, metal trades and motor mechanics. With the development of so-called labour hire companies and changes to immigration arrangements following the Roach report, there are growing concerns that it is just far too easy to import labour without adequate justification and scrutiny. Of particular concern is the use of single entry visa arrangements by labour hire companies. They do not attract the same level of scrutiny as formalised labour agreements and they do not operate on the basis of having firm positions in which employees are being placed. Rather, they have a pool of labour in the event that the employer actually contacts them.In WA the so-called resources boom has been used as a justification for repeated calls for the importation of labour in the fabrication, construction and resource extraction industries at the same time as we are seeing declines in apprenticeships and traineeships. There has been a downsizing, as it is called by the economic rationalists, in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and that has seriously compromised their ability to scrutinise, monitor and enforce existing visa entry arrangements, especially the reported heavy use of these single entry visa permits by labour hire companies. Some of those companies in Western Australia have very strong connections with South Africa.The applications, in principle, should be supported by a listing of the vacancy—formerly with the CES; I am not clear who does it now—and by newspaper advertisements, but this is problematic since labour hire companies place advertisements as a matter of routine and without any specific employment opportunities having to be mentioned. The department of immigration is required to accept the word of the company, apparently, that no suitable applications have been received. There are reports that the statement, `No suitable applicants were identified,' is all that is actually required, and the grounds for determining that applicants were not suitable are not publicly known nor specified. Following this, allegedly, labour market testing then follows by DEETYA, but clearly there is inadequate testing for skill shortage claims.I will just use an example from my own state. The health department of WA was able to advertise internationally to recruit mental health nurses. At the same time, I had women coming to my office, and one woman in particular who wanted to do some retraining. She needed to upgrade her skills in mental health nursing and was told that, under the current labour market regime, there were no funds for her to do so—but we could recruit nurses from overseas. There have been similar attempts to recruit in the metalwork industry as a whole, and I think as a community we need to be very concerned about these matters. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.358216:06:003582McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes that the current federal Government has diverted funding into private education at the direct expense of public education;(2) acknowledges that a properly resourced public education system is vitally important to equity of access to quality education; and(3) calls upon the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to properly resource public education.If members on either side of this House were asked to name this nation's most valuable resource, I do not think anyone would say wool, I do not think anyone would say wheat, I do not think anyone would say coal and I do not think anyone would say gold. They would say that this nation's most valuable resource is our children, our youth. Under this government, there has been a significant reduction in spending on education and there has been a massive shift in resources from public school education to private school education. In fact, over the next three years, there will be an overall drop in education spending of 1.3 per cent, despite the fact that there will be 70,000 more enrolments in that same time.In terms of the allocation of resources, this budget shows that there has been a 0.4 per cent increase in spending on public schools but a 6.4 per cent increase in spending on private schools. That is 16 times more money that is being spent on private schools than on public schools. The budget papers themselves show that federal funding of public schools amounts to only 12 per cent, whereas it is 38 per cent for private schools. In fact, the 0.4 per cent itself is not an increase at all because it has not been discounted for price increases. When those price increases are factored in, it is a $90 million reduction in funding for public schools which has occurred.In addition to that, we are seeing that reduction in real funding occurring because public schools are being forced to take on some 27,000 more youths with the abolition of the common youth allowance. The department's own figures show that $140 million extra is needed. But the government has come up with only $42 million.In addition, public schools face a situation with this so-called enrolment benchmark adjustment—that is, every time a child shifts from a public school to a private school, the funds available for education are depleted by some $1,700, whereas the Commonwealth provides $470 for each child educated in a public school. As soon as they move to a private school, the government kicks the can to the tune of $1,700.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—And vice versa. That's justice. It goes both ways.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—It goes one way. That is a good point. If a child from a private school goes into a public school, the public school gets only $470. That is justice?The members of the government are going to espouse this mantra of freedom of choice. If you have a spare $10,000 per child, if you have a spare $12,000 per child, in the elite private school sector you have a lot of freedom of choice. It is somewhat amusing, I dare say, to talk about freedom of choice when you see it in those terms, but that is the reality. Yes, some people have a lot of freedom of choice, but 70 per cent of the population do not have that freedom—they do not have that spare money and their kids are in the public school system. We used to have a first-class public school system. We are now seeing one which is being chronically run down.It is quite amusing to hear the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) talking about freedom of choice. For so many families, there is no freedom of choice. They have no option but to use the public school system. We have an obligation to properly resource it. This nation's future, as an economy, as a significant world player, depends on the competence of our youth.If we are concentrating resources on only some 30 per cent whose parents can afford private education, the nation as a whole will be the loser and society as a whole will suffer because of the massive disparity it will create for educational opportunities, which, of course, are so important to empowerment and to achievement not only of individuals but also of the nation as a whole. If there is one thing that stands out for this government, it is the fact that John Howard's mainstream Australians, quite clearly, are those very narrow group of people who have the resources to afford private school education. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:11:003583Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise with enthusiasm to defend the government's exceptional record in secondary education and to oppose with equal enthusiasm the motion put by the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland). The Australian Labor Party—and, it would appear, the Australian Education Union—is locked into something of a time warp in its approach to education. What you see with this government is a breath of fresh air, an innovation and a recognition that changing circumstances require changes in policy.Fundamentally, this government is committed to equitable access to excellence in education for all Australians. Our policies reflect and underscore that commitment. In fact, to keep this debate in perspective, we ought to recognise the fact that, over the past three coalition budgets, we have provided, in aggregate, an additional $1.47 billion for schools over funding levels that existed in 1995-96. Those additional funds are going into some tremendously innovative but well-targeted areas which are specifically designed to enhance access to education among the less fortunate in our community.I note there is $24 million in this budget alone for the full service schools program. That program has been designed to put schools in a position to respond effectively to the higher retention rates which we expect as a result of reforms to the youth allowance. Under those reforms, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that no young Australian is auto matically entitled to the youth allowance unless they can demonstrate their enrolment in a course or full-time study or they have a specific exemption. That reform to the youth allowance is an expression of our commitment to access to secondary education. It is about instilling a whole new culture in young Australians which says, `I'm either in a job, looking for a job or in full-time training.'We have not just issued an edict from on high without providing the resources to actually deliver and manage the change. We have made the policy change but, at the same time, in this year's budget, $24 million has been allocated to the full service schools program. A very fertile question in the current debate is: where is that money going to go in the context of the public/private school discussion? I can tell you overwhelmingly that that $24 million will go into the public school system.In a similar way, in this budget we have made an extra $57 million allocation to the special needs of indigenous education. In terms of access to education in that community, we can boast an increase of 800 per cent on last year's figures as the number of indigenous enrolled trainees has now risen to 817. Similarly, the coalition's $7.5 million of additional expenditure in this budget for the national schools drug education strategy—which was part of the very well received Tough on Drugs campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—will overwhelmingly go to the public school system.This government has responded to parent choice. If the members opposite are lamenting government providing resources to the non-government school sector, we ought to recognise the fact that over the past 30 years enrolment in non-government schools has doubled from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. That took place not just under this government but, over the past 30 years, under all previous governments. It is primarily a function not of government policy but of parent choice.Professional educators in either sector will say the same thing. For example, Alan Laughlin, Assistant Director-General of Education in New South Wales, says that the bulk of students still go to their local schools, that demographics are usually responsible for falling numbers, and that he does not know of any complaints about poaching. He says that there are a lot of different reasons, and amongst them is the fact that older students are more and more conscious of the availability of different choices and that they are exercising the choices themselves. Similarly, in principle, the enrolment benchmark adjustment favours neither public nor private schools. Nothing in that formula says anything about private or public schools; however, it does say that funding ought to follow choice, and we support that principle. (Time expired)16:16:003584Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—They say that if you repeat a lie often enough, over and over again, you begin to believe it yourself. It is apparent to me that members of the government backbench have listened to the member for Goldstein, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), peddling his misrepresentations at the dispatch box so often that they are beginning to believe him. We do not believe him on this side—not for a moment.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—On a point of order—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The parliamentary secretary is going to take offence, so I will withdraw that immediately, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member has withdrawn the point of order.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am happy to provide the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) with an example of Minister Kemp's tactics. On 2 June 1997, Minister Kemp was asked a question by the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin). The question was about a statement by the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). The member for Werriwa had said that a Labor government would restore the minimum number of students that was required to be obtained before starting a non-government school.The minister twisted that around. He said that the member for Werriwa had suggested that all schools would require at least 50 students. He then went on to rattle off about half a dozen or more schools in my electorate which would potentially close if Labor were to impose such a criterion. That was ridiculous, but the truth is that all the government schools he mentioned—including Broke, Congewai, Jerry Plains, Laguna, Martindale, Milbrodale, Millfield, Moonan Flat—are now under threat because those government schools service small areas. They rely on a certain number of students to remain viable.What does the new policy of Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, do? It puts those schools at risk because they lose the critical mass necessary to remain viable at the loss of one or two children to the private sector. Today, the minister well and truly let the cat out of the bag. In response to another dorothy dixer, he said that those on the other side—that is the members of the Australian Labor Party—wanted to lock low income families into `those schools forever'. What did he mean by `those schools forever'? The schools he was referring to were government schools.Having heard what he said during question time today, it is obvious that the minister believes that those government schools offer a quality of education something less than is offered by schools in the private sector. The cat is out of the bag. His approach to education is ideologically driven. The minister does not believe in the ability of the public sector to deliver a decent standard of education so he is going to bring it down. He will be happy when he has transferred so many kids out of the government sector that he has all but brought the public system down. That is when he will be happy.Another example of his attempt to do that is the introduction of the common youth allowance. His own department estimates that that will drive some 27,000 kids back into the public education system. What is that going to do to public education? He is going to place amongst students who want to be there and want to learn other students who have no interest in education. What is that going to do to the quality of education for students currently in those schools? To compensate the schools, the minister is going to offer $42 million. What a joke!This government has a fixation with the private sector. It has our unemployed people shopping around among private providers in an attempt to secure employment assistance, but the minister is discriminating between electorates on that basis. He is making sure that those in marginal government electorates have plenty of providers and those in safe Labor electorates have virtually nil. This is all about his obsession with the private sector. He does not give a hoot if thousands of public school kids get damaged along the way. (Time expired)16:21:003585Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—As a product of the government school system, I speak on this matter with some form of balanced viewpoint. I have no bias one way or the other on which system of education, private or public, is preferable. I am one of the 70 per cent from the public school system to which the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) referred. I make it clear that I support the notion of choice, and this government provides a system of education which provides adequate choice for parents in choosing educational streams for their children. Mind you, if those opposite do not support the opportunity for choice in education, they expose themselves as the socialistic dinosaurs of the past.The fact that the Commonwealth government directs a large proportion of schools funding to non-government schools and that the state governments direct a large proportion of their schools funding to government schools is not a coalition policy. When in government, the member for Barton's party also administered schools funding in this way. It is the way our constitution sets out the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the states which determines the way our education system is administered. Government has a responsibility to provide universal education—and so the Commonwealth government also provides funding to independent schools.That said, the per capita public expenditure from both state and Commonwealth governments for government students is greater than for non-government students, naturally—it adds up. The Commonwealth government has a responsibility to ensure that children are receiving a proper standard of education, irrespective of which school they go to. It is not for the government to determine that independent schools should get extra money—through the extra fees paid by their parents—so the government is not going to provide any funding. Almost 100 per cent of the funding for government schools comes from public sources, but non-government schools must make up about 43 per cent—almost half—of their funding from private sources.Education and health are basic rights of Australian citizens and basic responsibilities of Australian governments. The government subsidises private health patients; it does not make the service rely solely on money it receives through private patient payments. Likewise, the government has a responsibility to ensure the proper education of Australian students, so it contributes to non-government schools, which get little assistance from the states by way of general purpose grants. It does not make a school rely solely on the money it receives through private payments or, as I said, from the parents of the students. To do so would simply abrogate the responsibilities of government. Parents who put their children into independent schools have made a choice to pay more, and they should not be penalised for it. They are as entitled as anyone else, particularly as taxpayers, to receive assistance for education for their children.This government allocated $4.1 billion to Australian schools in the last budget. This represented an increase of $153 million, or 3.8 per cent. That debunks the rumour that there is less money. The last three coalition budgets have provided almost $750 million of additional funding for schools, which is a 22 per cent increase over that provided in Labor's last budget in 1996. It is anticipated that special purpose payments for government schools will increase from $1.6 billion in 1997 to $1.68 billion in 1998. Taking into account all the Commonwealth funding to the government education sector, expenditure is expected to increase from $4.682 billion in 1997 to $4.859 billion this year. This is an increase of $382 million in 1998 when compared with that of 1996, Labor's last budget. I hope you get the point—there has been an increase.The opposition seems to be trying to use the enrolment benchmark adjustment as a way to say that the government is stripping money from the public education sector. That is just wrong; it is untrue. The EBA has recouped a total of $12 million from the states. Compare that with the amount of money allocated or spent on the states. It is important that appropriate measures are implemented to recoup moneys—$12 million is a mere drop in the ocean compared with the amount of money being spent by this government on education. As I said, it is $4.589 billion compared with $12 million. The EBA does not remove funding from government schools when a student transfers to an independent school. It adjusts when the proportion of the students in independent schools shift from the benchmark proportion measured in 1996; it simply reduces the impact of statistical anomalies in the states. The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) talked about the government forcing students back to school. (Time expired)16:26:003586Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I want to go back to the core of this debate: the three keys points that were put forward by the member for Barton (Mr McClelland). The first point notes that the current federal government has diverted funding into private education at the direct expense of public education. When the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) was elected to this office, after despatching Senator Vanstone to other places, he sought to introduce a new sectarianism into education in Australia. He did that because he is absolutely committed to destroying the public sector—in this instance, the public sector in education at the school level, the TAFE level and the university level. His preference is for the private sector. The entire preference of this government is sectarian with regard to the public and private sectors. It does not believe that this Commonwealth government should provide one single direct service to any individual in Australia. This direct shift that the minister has introduced is to push people out of the public education system and into the private educa tion system. He bases this upon the notion of choice. With that notion of choice, the minister says that parents can choose to take their children out of the public education system and put them into the private education system, and the funding for every one of those children will follow them directly. There will be no compensation to any government school in any state in Australia for the funding that they have been deprived of.The member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and the member for Barton pointed out the consequences of this. If you take away funding from those government schools, then the pressure that exists on those schools will continue to get much greater. It will be a greater impost and a greater burden; it will inexorably lead to a lower quality of education for those children still in government schools. This minister validates what he calls `choice' by adopting a sectarian program. This is one where he says that `choice' is really about dismantling the public education system because he is ideologically against it.The second point that the member for Barton made in his argument on this motion acknowledges that a properly resourced public education system is vitally important to equity of access to quality education. No more important thing could be done for every student in every Australian school than that we seek to strive for quality of education and that we do it on the basis of an equitable and equal allocation of Commonwealth funds to the public and private sectors. Whether those students come from Yagoona Public School, Bankstown Grammar School or De La Salle College, Bankstown, they should be treated equally by the Commonwealth. Any student leaving Yagoona Public School to go to another school, whether it be Bankstown Grammar or De La Salle in Bankstown or any other, should not be put in a position where their leaving and taking the funding with them prejudices the state school system.This is a sectarian weapon to beat the public education system down. This is a weapon to destroy it bit by bit, to take out of it any equity, any equal treatment, any concern for all of those children who are still in public education in Australia. We have a combination of public and private systems, as we have a combination of public and private parts of the economy. Both sides should be treated equally. Students in all of the system should be given the chance to do the best that they can in terms of their ability and their circumstances.The third point is that the member for Barton called on the minister to properly resource public education. It is time now, after three budgets brought down by this government, for them to reverse this sectarian approach to the provision of moneys for public education, to be real and to be truthful and to reverse what they have done and put Commonwealth moneys back into public education, and to treat those in the public and private sectors equally and fairly. It is important that that should be done. This minister finally should tell the truth about the situation and about the real cuts that he has made to public education in Australia. (Time expired)16:31:003587Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—This motion of the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) is quite confused. It is dictated by the Teachers Federation, which seems to give its instructions to the opposition, and it is an attempt to return to the sectarian debates of the sixties which I think everybody else in Australia has put behind them. The fact of the matter is that we have spent more money on education in each of the three budgets we have brought down, and we are spending more money in the government sector as well. In fact, we are spending $190 million more this year than Labor did in its last budget in 1996.In this last budget brought down a couple of weeks ago we upped education spending again by $153 million—an increase of 3.8 per cent on the previous year. The formula for the funding of pupils in the schools has remained the same. There has been an increase in pupils in the government school sector of 0.4 per cent and in the non-government sector of 2.2 per cent. That is irrefutable. There has been an increase in enrolments and in funding for both. The reason that it has been at a slower rate in the government sector is the enrolment factor.It is a constant ploy of the Teachers Federation and the ALP to whip up misrepresentation on this funding issue. That is a very sad factor indeed. But the fact is that 71 per cent of school children in Australia attend government schools and they attract 81 per cent of the total government funding. Only 29 per cent of pupils attend non-government schools and they attract 19 per cent of the funding. That means that the parents of the children attending non-government schools are kicking in the difference.Something like $5,456 goes from the taxpayers to fund the average student in a government school and $3,254 to subsidise a child in a non-government school, which means that, for every child going to a non-government school, it is saving the taxpayer about $2,200 per pupil. If you multiply the 940,000 pupils in non-government schools by that $2,200, you get a figure in excess of $2,000 million in savings to the taxpayer. That is something that the other side ought to contemplate, because if they close down all non-government schools, which they seem to want to do, the government sector could not cope and nor could the taxpayer.We should be thanking people for sending children to non-government schools. It is not just rich children going to non-government schools. The range of schools is from the poorest Catholic school right through to the grade 1 private schools and the spread of income of families of children in private schools is at least equal to those of children going to government schools. The fact is that the coalition supports both arrangements. We believe in choice in education because it delivers competition and efficiency as well as religious instruction for those who want it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members business has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate3588Question proposed:That grievances be noted. 358816:36:003588Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—It is almost 2¼ years since the Australian public elected John Howard to be Prime Minister. It is reasonable to say that there was an expectation that they were looking towards a period when they could feel comfortable and relaxed, where very little would change, where there were only two major policy differences between the government of the day and the then opposition and when they perhaps would be able to take things a bit more slowly.Some of us were not quite so sure about that. Some of us remembered Mr Howard from a previous incarnation. Some of us remembered that back in 1982 the manufacturing work force in this country reduced by eight per cent in one year when he was Treasurer. Some of us recall coming into government in 1983 with a deficit in prospect of $25 billion, which the Secretary to the Treasury had formally advised the then Treasurer of and which had not been disclosed. Some of us remember the chaos, confusion and confrontation of the 1981-82 period between the then Fraser government, with John Howard as Treasurer, and the industrial relations and other sectors.Some of us recall that we were elected to parliament on a platform of reconciliation because Australia was so driven apart. Fraser and Howard between them put Australians against Australians, group against group. In 1996 a lot of us were not so sure about being comfortable and relaxed. As it turns out, after two years and almost three months, we had reasons not to share that projected vision of the then opposition.It is also time to do some measuring and I want to put things in context. We hear government members constantly talking about how much is being spent in various portfolios. I want to put some numbers on the record right up front and right now. In the current budget, this government projects a PAYE taxpayer revenue of $65 billion. In the last Labor government budget—in 1995-96—PAYE revenue was $52 billion. We have had a 25 per cent increase in PAYE income over three years. Since last October-November, we have had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) talking up an early election, scurrying off to the polls because we need tax reform. We sure do need tax reform, and that is where we need it. The increase in PAYE taxpayer contributions has been 25 per cent over three years.A second interesting figure that is worth noting is that in the current budget we see a decline in personal non-PAYE taxpayer revenue of $400 million. In other words, those individuals who pay tax, but not through a PAYE system, will pay $400 million less in the next year than they are paying in the current year. That is a fascinating figure—$400 million has gone missing. Rather than increasing, along with eight per cent or a $5 billion increase in PAYE income in the current budget, we are seeing a substantial decrease.The third figure to keep in mind which is really fascinating is that the Treasury estimates in 1995-96 for taxation revenues, compared to the actual for that budget, were overestimated by $2.8 billion—about the same as the current government surplus. That income evaporated within the economy of 1995-96. By Christmas this year, this surplus will have gone because the government has massively underestimated what is happening in Asia. The Prime Minister is going to an early election because he cannot afford, under his charter of budget honesty, to have the Treasury do a projection on the year ahead late this year. It will be devastating. The surplus will have evaporated and we will be facing a possible deficit because the projected growth of three per cent will not have been achieved and the current account deficit of $31 billion will be much greater. So by late this year the figures in this current budget will have gone.In that two years and three months, we have also had time to assess the Prime Minister's government at a local level, looking at what is occurring in Newcastle in particular. I have had a response from the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) to my question on notice regarding the Newcastle Family Court where they have known for a year that one of the current judges is retiring. The answer, of course, is that they appoint judges in the state, not to a particular court. What he does not say is that there are currently something like five Family Court judges unappointed. There are vacancies all over Australia and have been for quite some time, and there is no sign of any movement.We had a similar response from the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) when I posed him a question about the shifting of work from Newcastle to New Zealand. He evaded the issue, avoided the question and sat back and watched while 90 jobs went from the Paterson electorate in the Hunter across to New Zealand as a sweetener for the New Zealand public in terms of the extension of the frigate contract. We will see a third vessel announced in the not too distant future, partly paid for by the political bribery of shifting jobs from the Hunter across to Whangarei in New Zealand.In Newcastle alone, we have seen something like 400 jobs disappear from the Commonwealth payroll. That has meant between $20 and $30 million per year has gone out of our economy and is not creating other jobs. As well, 400 or more families have been badly affected by that contraction of jobs. Amongst that contraction was the closure of the Newcastle immigration office, which provided an excellent service. Day after day, we are finding people who are looking for assistance and support on immigration matters. Both my office and, I am sure, the office of other members in the Hunter are seeing increasing numbers of people, as is the Migrant Resources Centre. In other words, they have shifted the load from the immigration office across to ourselves, but we cannot do the work that the department did in Newcastle. People now have to travel to Sydney for interviews and for all kinds of issues, in many cases minor issues. It takes a whole day. That is one more effect.We have seen an absolute savaging of the support for unemployed people in Newcastle and in the Hunter. It has now become very clear that, unless you are on social security, there is no support for getting a job unless you pay for it. Constituent after constituent is coming forward, having been told that because they are not on social security they are not supported. There are no funds available to help them find a job, let alone do any training. I have had case after case where people have been dismayed to discover that these services are no longer available. What will happen in the months ahead will be that employers will reduce their recruitment services when they start to realise the government will do it for them via private agencies.Also in this period we have seen dramatic changes at BHP signalling the closing of the steel making capacity at Newcastle. I want to place on record my disappointment that the Prime Minister, who has now been to Newcastle on more than one occasion since coming to office, promised the people of Newcastle publicly and openly that any serious projects that came forward would be sent to his special projects adviser, Mr Mannsfield.We saw the difficultly of the minister in even coming to terms with the BHP announcement, let alone understanding it. The fact is that we are yet to see Mr Mannsfield. The companies I speak to say that they cannot get to him. Those people who ring the Prime Minister's office to try to find a way to talk to the government about steel proposals say they cannot get through or cannot get answers. So, on that issue, he has let us down enormously.The other issue of the day, of course, is the division between the government, employers and unions. What happened on the wharves of Newcastle in recent weeks was disgraceful in terms of what the government has created. We worked incredibly hard at building our industrial relations record in Newcastle and the Hunter with great success, only to watch it being torn apart by a government using taxpayers' money to encourage employers to dismiss a whole work force.The wharf labourers working for Patrick in Newcastle were discriminated against in a most vicious and savage way. Their response, to my mind, has been excellent and has been one of restraint. I certainly applaud those people—not just the MUA members, but the whole community—who have been active in the peaceful demonstrations. (Time expired)359016:46:003590Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I rise today on an issue that is at the heart of the Northern Territory's push for statehood, and that is the issue of territory control of territory assets. In particular, I wish to devote my time today to the issue of national parks and the management of Uluru and Kakadu by the Commonwealth. My views on this subject are well known. I point out from the outset that this is not about ownership of the parks; it is about management. Most territorians would be happy to see the parks' day-to-day management under the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory government.I speak at a time of great debate about the way our natural heritage is administered. Earlier this year, the government released a consultation paper examining environmental law reform. One of the overriding principles of this paper was that of granting more responsibility to the states and territories for identifying and conserving places of local significance. It is my strong belief that the states and territories are in a much better position to protect their natural heritage and I am pleased that the government is also prepared to recognise this fact. I also say, in the strongest terms, that territory governments are also in a better position than the Commonwealth for managing their natural heritage areas.I met with the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, when he was in the territory last week for a meeting of the Ministerial Council on Territory World Heritage Properties. It was a valuable opportunity for territory ministers to express their frustration and concern over the future direction and the management of the parks. The result of the meeting was the formation of a new ministerial council which consists of the federal environment and tourism ministers and the Northern Territory parks and wildlife and tourism ministers.With all the difficulties faced by tourist operators, traditional owners and recreational groups in co-existing within our national parks, I welcome the establishment of the ministerial council. I am hopeful that the management issues that have caused so much division in the past will now be closer to a resolution. At the very least, there will be an integrated and representative body working towards better management of the parks.Last week the territory government also raised several issues with the minister relating to the Kakadu draft plan of management, which has been pending for a long time. I am encouraged by the creation of the ministerial council, which is well overdue, in my opinion, as it is crucial that the territory government is involved in the future of the parks. The council will also serve as a forum for discussions relating to the continuation of work on community development in the areas of health, housing and education, including national park management.The other major development that came out of the meeting was the proposal by the Northern Territory government of the possibility of nominating a greater Kakadu National Park. This would incorporate Gurig National Park, the Murgenella and Amorrduk/Borradalle areas, Kakadu National Park and Nitmiluk National Park as a world heritage cultural landscape. This would increase the size of the heritage listed areas and so make baseless the opposition's fanciful claims about the territory government wanting to destroy Kakadu and Uluru national parks. If the territory government wanted to destroy these parks, why would they seek to make Kakadu bigger?I am pleased that the minister has announced his intention to review the ability of the Northern and Central land councils to veto Northern Territory government nominations for the Uluru and Kakadu parks' boards of management. I am hopeful that the situation may be resolved shortly. For too long the land councils have used park management as a tool to further their own political agenda instead of working for the best interests of traditional owners and other territorians. The minister acknowledged that the land councils have consistently vetoed territory government nominations. I am pleased that the territory government may now have regular input into issues of park management. Not only does the territory government need to be involved in determinations affecting park management but local tourist operators also have a stake in the future of the parks, so I welcome the decision to include the tourist industry in meetings of the council. Many tourist operators have expressed great concern over the management of Uluru and Kakadu. Indeed, as I speak, there is an Administrative Appeals Tribunal case being brought by tourist operators against Parks Australia. The tourist operators are disappointed by the lack of consultation in determining issues of park management.I accept that dealing with Commonwealth departments and bureaucracy is always going to be a frustrating and time consuming activity. I could cite examples of departmental officials wreaking havoc on the lives of our constituents, but I must admit that one of the worst offenders in the territory was the former Australian Nature and Conservation Agency—and I do not say this lightly. I have many constituents whose livelihoods depend on the national parks in my electorate, and the intransigence and arrogance of ANCA often shocked me.The establishment of Parks Australia by the Commonwealth has improved the situation to a large degree. The lines of communication are better but still difficult, particularly for local small business operators. With the full backing and force of the Commonwealth behind them, Parks Australia is able to bully locals with the threat of legal action that small operators simply cannot afford.The Northern Territory government has a good record of environmental management in the territory. The example of the joint management of Nitmiluk Gorge at Katherine between traditional owners and the NT Parks and Wildlife Service is one that immediately springs to mind. The NT Parks and Wildlife Service has the runs on the board with a good working relationship with all users of territory parks including traditional owners, recreational users and tourist operators.Kakadu is one of the territory's greatest natural assets and a very important part of the tourism industry in the Top End, but it also belongs to territorians. High entry tolls are keeping families from enjoying Kakadu, which is a constant source of annoyance to me. I am still of the belief that the toll fee should be scrapped to ensure that families can enjoy the experience Kakadu has to offer.So I am pleased that determinations on issues like the admission price to Kakadu will now have to include all interested parties, including tourist operators and the territory government. I look forward to working with all parties to achieve a sustainable balance of recreational activities and environmental protection for Kakadu and Uluru. We need to put in place a system of complementary and coordinated approaches to management and planning. Our natural heritage is too important to be a victim of excessive bureaucracy or political grandstanding.The meeting that Minister Hill had in the Northern Territory just recently was a ground-breaking procedure. As far as I am aware, it is the first time that a minister of the Crown has gone to the Northern Territory with the specific task of sitting down with local ministers who have the day-to-day experience of the Northern Territory. The briefing papers that were prepared for the ministerial council were very detailed. The meeting gave all concerned parties the opportunity to canvass and express views on future park management. There had been no previous dialogue between the Northern Territory government, ANCA, and some of the traditional owners through the Northern Land Council. I am very pleased that this problem is going to be resolved.From the ministerial meetings it has been decided to set up standing committees which will evaluate some of the concerns raised at the ministerial conference. It is hoped that they will meet at least twice a year. During the period that the ministerial council is not meeting in the Northern Territory the standing committee, made up of the chief executive officers—or their delegates—to the ministers, will be able to canvass the thoughts and options presented at the ministerial conferences.For far too long, many people have raised questions to which they have not been able to get suitable answers. That creates further frustration when trying to put in place good procedures which will enable the transient population—that is, tourists—to move around the park and not have any fear that, when they make a booking in the United States or United Kingdom or Europe, they may come to the park and not be able to get into it. Some tourists from central Europe and the United Kingdom have booked tours to go to central Australia and Uluru and have found upon arrival that, because of various factors, some of the park area of Uluru had been closed. That is very disappointing for people who have planned to venture out to Australia for their holiday. Sometimes they have to sit on an aircraft for anything between nine and 14 hours to reach this continent and for another 2½ hours to Uluru only to find that an area of the park that they particularly wanted to look at is not available because of some decision made about the area being closed off without any reference to the local tour operators or the Northern Territory government.So it is a good move by Senator Hill to have discussions with his counterparts in the Northern Territory. I am hopeful that the discussions will be beneficial to all Territorians. As I said earlier, I look forward to working with that group in ensuring that all Australians have access to Uluru and Kakadu. (Time expired)359216:56:003592Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—My grievance is the damage being done to the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast by this government's reactionary and ruthless policies. The electorate of Shortland embraces parts of the Hunter and Central Coast regions. Many people live in one region and work in another—and recreate in one or the other.Overall, the destructive and partisan decisions by this government to dismantle public services, abolish entitlements and increase taxes and charges hurt families of both regions. Since this government came to office in March 1996, its ministers in our regions have cut a swathe through public services, with more than 700 federal Public Service jobs being abolished. Worse than just abolishing the jobs is the fact that it has done so with an arrogance that is unseemly and previously unseen. Daily we see ministers in this House bragging about the federal services they have abolished.In our region the flow-on effect has directly caused the loss of some 2,000 jobs in the private sector. Let me list some services and jobs that have been ripped from our region—action about which this government brags but action which has caused more mistakes, more delays, and worse services for those who need to use Commonwealth departments and agencies.The immigration office in Newcastle has been closed, forcing people in certain circumstances to travel to Sydney. The customs service between the Hunter and the Queensland border has been reduced to a token service. First, the Belmont CES was closed in my electorate; now, all CES offices have been abolished, along with all publicly assisted non-CES offices in my electorate.Employment National cannot possibly provide the standard or availability of service required by long-term unemployed people—nor can the new private employment services. In practice, the long-term unemployed of my electorate are consigned to the scrap heap by this government.The area office of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs was abolished—104 jobs went in one hit. The Charlestown Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service has been closed, creating more hardship, more difficulty for people with disabilities who want to get back into the work force—people who want the dignity and the independence of employment. The Swansea Visiting Service of the Department of Social Security was closed. The Department of Social Security itself has disappeared into a shrunken Centrelink agency. I am sure everybody in this House is having experiences with Centrelink regarding the degradation of service, the lack of knowledge by staff, and the fact that people working there are under a great deal of stress and are trying to cope with the far less than adequate resources being provided by this government.Much of the general staff of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has gone. The latest arrogance is the closure of the Belmont Medicare office in my electorate, about which I have spoken on a number of occasions.As a government, we regionalised federal services. We brought services to people who needed them. That had two purposes: one was to provide the services, and better services, to those who needed them and the other was to bring employment. Tertiary employment, particularly for women, was shared around the regions rather than being mostly centralised in the capital cities. But what this government of centralism is doing is de-regionalising Australia. It is taking the jobs back into the capital cities. The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs had 17 regions across Australia. It has been restructured back into the old structure of seven branches, one based in each state capital city.The government can take full credit for the abolition of hundreds of federal Public Service jobs—that 700 I mentioned earlier in the Hunter and Central Coast regions—along with 2,000 jobs in the private sector which resulted from the flow-on effect of the loss of the federal jobs. This is having an effect on the general economy of the region. Whilst this government mouths promising words about regionalisation, if one looks at the budget papers one sees that all of the programs and moneys being spent outside capital cities are being lumped together into one number and referred to as `regional expenditure' and `regional programs'. Each of us knows that that kind of expenditure is not a planned or regionalised process of expenditure or anything at all like a regional approach to development.This government can try as it will to weaken the Hunter because of the Labor seats that are held there. That is very much the case in respect of the Medicare services and other decisions it has taken. But, regardless of what this government does, the strength of the Hunter, across the Labor electorates, is that it is at the congruence of a national highway grid and of a national rail grid. There is a congestion-free port in the area with space available. And, no matter what the government may do, we have skills in that region and a natural advantage from the transport infrastructure that is there. We have people who are experts in logistics. We sit at the northern end of the best transport corridor in this nation, a transport corridor that links the largest market in this nation to the second largest market in New South Wales. Despite all the measures of this government to weaken that region, we will still develop the Hunter and the associated port as a major transport and distribution centre that will service the areas to the south and the hinterland to the north and the west. We will utilise the advantages of the port and utilise the advantages of our people with their skills, their knowledge and their existing transport infrastructure.Let me turn in my last minutes to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). I listen daily to the Prime Minister claiming his great record of achievement. As someone who has served in this parliament for some time, I want to remind the parliament of the Treasurer that I knew when we were last in opposition—the Treasurer who, in the 1983 election campaign, left to our incoming Labor government a budget deficit of $25 billion in today's dollars. He concealed that deficit; he paraded around Australia with no knowledge of it, even though he had Treasury documents advising him of the level of that deficit. This Prime Minister is the $25 billion deficit man. This is the Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, gave us the highest inflation ever at 12 per cent, with the exception of the Korean War; he gave us double digit unemployment; he gave us the highest cash interest rates in history; and he produced the first negative growth in the Australian economy in 30 years. It is an outstanding achievement.You may wonder, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I take little comfort in or place little credence on what today's Prime Minister has to say, knowing what his previous performance was. Today's Prime Minister is the same person who, as Treasurer, gave us that record personal income tax rate of 60c in the dollar and an accompanying corporate tax rate of 49c in the dollar. Today he claims he wants lower tax rates. He left us with a 60c in the dollar personal income tax rate and, on top of that, double taxation on dividends. He was the Treasurer who repeatedly refused to accept from small business the proposition that taxing corporate profits and then taxing the dividends as personal income tax in the hands of the recipients was double taxation. It took the Labor government to abolish that double taxation and to introduce franking of dividends. And he is the man who now claims that he represents small business.I want to bring those matters to the attention of the parliament. The highest personal income tax rate, the highest level of inflation, double digit unemployment, record cash interest rates and the first negative growth rate in 30 years in 1982-83 were the responsibility of the Prime Minister as Treasurer—and he asks people to trust him.I say: let us judge this government, led by this Prime Minister, on the record that over time we saw him achieve and establish. This is the man—the $25 billion deficit man—who, as then Treasurer Howard, left to the incoming Labor government double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, record cash interest rates, a record level of personal income tax rates and the greatest tax avoidance scandal in the history of this country, the bottom-of-the-harbour tax rorts, which he persistently avoided advice from the Commissioner of Taxation to do something about. This is a singular achievement from any parliamentarian. I bring it to the attention of the parliament because it is something about which this government is going to hear a lot more. (Time expired)359417:06:003594Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—This is National Reconciliation Week, with activities commencing on Wednesday, 27 May. I am proud to be the government's representative on the Reconciliation Council, which met yesterday to consider the work we must do to achieve our objectives by the year 2000.The Howard government continues in the tradition of previous Liberal-National party governments in strongly supporting the process of reconciliation in this nation. Indeed, some of the most significant milestones in advancing Australian indigenous opportunity and national reconciliation have been achieved by previous Liberal leaders. Our government believes that true reconciliation rests on some basic principles that need to be understood and embraced by all Australians.Firstly, this government believes we must honestly and realistically acknowledge the injustices of the past, injustices that include the actions of some individuals, some non-government institutions and some official state and Commonwealth policies and practices. While the government policies and the work of institutions was well intentioned, it nonetheless had the effect of destroying the lives of some individuals, family structures and indigenous cultures. However, we cannot call on individuals to personally shoulder the guilt or responsibility for the policies of the past that caused so many people harm, and we cannot call on individuals to feel responsible for the cruel actions of individuals or agencies; nor does Australia's indigenous leadership expect that sort of response.Our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and our Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) have both expressed their personal regret about the treatment of our indigenous people in the past. I, too, have expressed in this place my deep-felt regret. Having acknowledged the terrible experiences of so many indigenous people, this government aims to address vigorously and wholeheartedly the impacts or the consequences of the past on today's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and children. We must work to overcome the legacy of the past, not just wallow in guilt or look back to see who there is to blame. On the eve of the anniversary of the tabling of the Bringing them home report, I need to acknowledge in particular the suffering and long-term effects of Australia's old miscegenation policies. The effects on the indigenous mothers and children have to be the most appalling that anyone can imagine. All decent Australians can understand the horror of having their children taken away—not just one child but in some cases two, three and four children were taken away from the mother over a number of years. This government has responded to what has become known as the `stolen children' report in sensitive and practical ways; through funding to assist with family reunions with the preservation of thousands of old files that will help mothers and children reunite, through funding to ATSIC to establish family link-up services, through funding of more counsellors to help with the reunion process and through further support for indigenous families and parenting programs.Unlike the previous government, we will see that funds actually deliver the programs and projects that consultation has identified as needed. We will set agreed targets and outcomes. We will monitor the programs so that we can see if the lives of indigenous people are genuinely improving through these programs and schemes. This targeting does not mean less funding, as alleged by some more interested in maintaining the status quo. In fact, this government has increased funding for indigenous specific programs from $1.7 billion in 1995-96 to $1.9 billion in 1998-99. This represents a real growth of 2.4 per cent.We acknowledge the terrible situation of many indigenous families who for generations have suffered Third World housing, health and education standards such as should not be tolerated in a nation like ours. This government agrees with indigenous people that these circumstances are intolerable in a society that embraces and celebrates multiculturalism but seems to pay only lip-service to the values of a fair go, tolerance and respect for all indigenous Australians. As long as indigenous people have an average life expectancy 20 years less than that of average Australians, as long as their unemployment rates are four times higher and as long as fewer than 7,500 indigenous students are in higher education, then we can only talk about reconciliation—it cannot be achieved. But, as well as the physical manifestations of wellbeing, this government acknowledges the spiritual needs of traditional people, such as the importance they attribute to land. We acknowledge and understand their need to have native title delivered according to the determinations of the High Court decisions. Consequently, this government has prepared amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 which, like so many other actions of past governments, were well intentioned but which delivered nothing but heartache and intercommunity tension to indigenous peoples. The Native Title Act 1993 promised so much and delivered so little. Over 670 claims and still only a couple of indigenous parties have ever come near to achieving their aims using this legislation.Our amendments, which accommodate the High Court decisions on Wik as well, will deliver justice to indigenous Australians, in particular through a new emphasis on negotiated outcomes and the principles of coexistence; that is, coexistence between pastoralists, indigenous communities and mining companies. I believe that delivering fair, workable native title legislation is an essential plank in the process leading to national reconciliation.This government has also tackled the problems associated with the flawed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. It took political courage to put these acts under the microscope. We could have turned a deaf ear to what was being said in dusty camps in remote Australia, in ghettos like Redfern and on the outskirts of some country towns. We could have chosen not to disturb those with interests vested in the status quo, who are loud and eloquent, and who have a position at the hub of a network that does not deliver benefits to all those who need to be uplifted and supported, who are without influence.Finally, to achieve reconciliation, Australians need to have an understanding of the history of this country. With that knowledge, they can interpret the impacts and effects they see on communities and individuals in the context of the consequences of past policies and actions. They may then be less likely to blame the victims. Each generation needs to understand the trials and triumphs that led to our being a stable, peace-loving and fundamentally decent society. Each generation needs to know the human cost of achieving civil unity in this country and, indeed, peace and stability in our region.In the same vein, Australians need to acknowledge the indigenous people who have struggled and triumphed despite the odds in each generation. Amongst our truly great Australians there are indigenous people represented across a whole range of endeavours. We must acknowledge them as we acknowledge all Australians.There is a movement afoot in our schools not to teach about the social, economic and political history of this country. I know there has been quite properly a protest about the Eurocentric focus of the Australian history that was once taught in our schools. However, poor history teaching in the past is no excuse for not now teaching about how Australia evolved from a continent settled by more than 200 discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes thousands of generations ago, who initially resisted but came to be a part of a new society that began as a convict settlement and, in a space of just 200 years, grew to take a place proudly amongst other developed nations. We will not be weakened by acknowledging the struggles that led to this great Australia. We need to teach about our colonial era of slavery, when Islanders were brought to plant and harvest the sugar, and children were passed on as indentured servants without pay or protection to new masters for less than the cost of a dog licence. We should acknowledge the role of the Native Police Forces as they acted under orders to hunt cattle killers or to fire upon the sleeping camps, `dispersal' being the euphemism for shoot to death.We need to acknowledge the rorts of the Western Australian Police Force at the turn of the century who were paid a daily expense allowance for every Aboriginal witness or suspect brought in chains to courts. Those per daily expenses added up to more than their yearly salary year after year.True reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is just over the horizon. It needs to be approached on a number of fronts. This government is doing all it can. I believe the Reconciliation Council, of which I am proudly a member, is going to work with us towards the year 2000 when we stand shoulder to shoulder, indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, and we walk together into the future.359717:16:003597Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I too would like to make some comments in this National Reconciliation Week on similar issues to which the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) has. I unfortunately did not hear the beginning of her speech, but I heard the end of it and enjoyed and appreciated the rhetoric. I hope she will be a worthy representative of the government on the National Reconciliation Council. I know she certainly has the potential to be. I hope that she will follow her heart as she deals with those important issues. She serves on that council with my running mate for the Senate for the Christian Democratic Party, Kerry Blackman, who is a fine Murri person and Aboriginal Christian. I am privileged, as I have said in this place before, to be running with Kerry in Queensland for the Senate.EM6STONEMrs Stone—A very fine person.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—He is, as the member for Murray says, a very fine person. Tomorrow is National Sorry Day. I have given a great deal of thought to what sort of response it would be appropriate to have from this parliament tomorrow. I do not quite know what to expect. I hope the government does plan for a statement to be made and perhaps for there to be a debate in this place so that sentiments like those expressed by the member for Murray can be discussed and debated.There is no more important issue for this nation at this time and in the next few years than the whole question of reconciliation. We have three years to get it right, in my view. In the year 2001 we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of our nation. Between now and then we have an opportunity to put things right to achieve reconciliation. The member for Murray is optimistic about it. I would like to be optimistic about it. I hope she is right that it can be achieved in that time. If it is not, the celebrations that we have in the year 2001 will be hollow, meaningless and, I would suggest, even hypocritical. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) is a person for whom I have a great respect. He is a close friend and has been for many years. In bringing down the government response to the Bringing them home report, which calls for a formal acknowledgment and apology from all parliaments, Senator Herron used these words to justify the decision of this government, this parliament, not to formally apologise: `This generation cannot be held responsible for practices and policies of past generations.' That has been a consistent argument of those who are unable or unwilling to bring themselves to say sorry. Elton John sings Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word. I am not much of an Elton John fan, but I think those words ought to ring in the ears of all of us in this place. Sorry for some reason and for some people—in fact, for many Australians—seems to be the hardest word. The concept of reconciliation is easily misunderstood and it is often misrepresented. The other day in the Melbourne Herald Sun Paul Gray described the process `as an exercise in moral excess'. He said:Most Australians do not regard being Australian as something to be ashamed of.Of course not. We have much to be proud of. We have achieved an enormous amount in the 200 years of white settlement in our nation, but the treatment and the current state of our indigenous people is surely not amongst our achievements.I ask Mr Gray, and I pose the question to members in this place today, where is the moral excess in apologising? What this really calls for at this time and at this stage in our nation's history is principled leadership. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, made a statement yesterday where he said:I am convinced that reconciliation must grow upwards from the community level. It is a seed that must be planted in the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians. It is not something that governments can legislate. That is true, but we are not talking about legislation. We are talking about whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) will come in here tomorrow, into this parliament on National Sorry Day, and say on behalf of this parliament and the people of Australia one simple word, and that word of course is `Sorry'.`Sorry for what?' people ask, and I hear them ask me often; every day they ask me. Sorry to the stolen generations. Yes, they were taken under laws of the day, but those laws were wrong, even if in some cases there were good outcomes. Sorry for the cultural genocide which began with the removal of children from their parents and which has destroyed and continues to destroy thousands of Aboriginal families. Sorry for the disastrous effect colonisation had on Aboriginal family life. Sorry for the wholesale dispossession of land. Sorry for the lives of those lost through slaughter. Sorry for the diseases which were introduced to which Aborigines had no immunity. And so the list goes on. Is there anything then in this list that we should say sorry for? Of course there is. It is only a simple word, but it is an enormous word in the context of what we are facing today, and that is what I believe to be the greatest challenge facing this nation, as I have said, in the next three years—and that is to achieve reconciliation to a very great degree. In the government response to the Bringing them home report were a number of worthy spending initiatives. Many of them are welcome. Many of them are worth while. Further spending has been foreshadowed to be announced by the Prime Minister tomorrow to mark the beginning of this National Reconciliation Week.This issue ultimately is not about money at all. No amount of money, no amount of spending—not billions of dollars—will substitute for an apology. I understand that many people feel uncomfortable with the concept of a Sorry Day. I know because I meet them out in my electorate every day. People are cynical about the whole process. I must say to this parliament that so was I a short time ago. I had similar views to those which I think some members of this place and certainly many Australians still hold. But I have come to understand how important this apology will be to the future harmony of our nation.Yesterday I attended an observance of Sorry Day on the Sunshine Coast at Noosa Heads. The local mayor, Bob Abbott, was there. He spoke in a wonderful and genuine way—and I pay tribute to him—on behalf of the community of the shire of Noosa. He said he was sorry and he meant it. He said it from the bottom of his heart. I would like to quote briefly from a speech that an Aboriginal elder made yesterday in the park at Noosa. He said:Today is a day where the Governments and people say SORRY. To many of our peoples they may say that sorry is not enough but when we consider the distance we have come and the efforts that are being shown by many of the descendants of those whose main idea was to destroy us, I believe that we as Aboriginals should at least show that we can come together and talk about it and sometimes this may help ease the hurt, and that maybe we may not forget what happened, but at least let us try to forgive.We may look back in anger and sorrow but let us not remain there in a pool of self pity and cry poor blackfellow me but look back and see how far we have come and push forward to be able to claim that which is ours by right and rite by law and lore and let us do it together, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people together.This process of reconciliation is a two-way process. There has been a lot of fault and a lot of hurt on both sides of this argument for many years, for too many years. There needs to be an apology from both sides. My Aboriginal brothers and sisters and friends recognise that and they concede that. But this is a moment that requires leadership and it requires very sensitive leadership right from the top.Tomorrow we will have an opportunity in this place for that leadership to be provided. It will not take much, but it will mean a lot. I challenge the Prime Minister, whom I know has not an ounce of racism anywhere in him, to take that step, to provide that leadership, to understand and to share what many of us have come to understand and believe—that is, that the process of reconciliation is important and that it will not occur, it will not be furthered and it will not be achieved until this apology has been forthcoming.The people of Australia who are cynical about that process need to be convinced by principled leadership at this time. That is my challenge to Mr Howard tomorrow: to come in and to provide that leadership, and then let us get on with it. Let us put the past behind us. Let us with our Aboriginal friends, brothers and sisters start to move toward to the year 2001. Let us make sure when that time comes we have something to celebrate and that our celebrations will indeed be meaningful and that at that time we will have assured a future for our kids. (Time expired)359917:26:003599Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—Towards the end of last year I sent a survey to all households in the electorate of Stirling seeking the views of my constituents on quite a number of issues. I have to say that the result of that particular survey was overwhelming and has taken us many months to compile. Today I am happy to report to the House a number of the results so that we are aware of the concerns of the people who put us in this place to represent them. I am quite sure that the views of the people of Stirling are very much in line with the views of the overwhelming number of Australians.Obviously a topical issue at the moment is that of tax reform: 88.1 per cent of the more than 5,000 respondents to my survey expressed support for reform of our tax system. Only 6.4 per cent wanted the status quo. The theme of the responses was that there is no incentive to work harder or longer. There is dissatisfaction with the fact that too many people are in the higher brackets of tax, despite earning only average incomes.This result sends a message to all political parties that our tax system is not good enough. It is no good making additions or minor alterations to an already cumbersome act; it needs to be revised and rewritten. It needs to be made user-friendly for businesses and individuals alike. I welcome the verdict of the people of Stirling that the tax system needs reform. It is a task this government has set itself and will not shy away from.We take on this task having seen the former government fiddle with the system without making the major changes required. The opposition, unfortunately, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the debate on tax reform. The last time we had such a debate was in 1993 when the coalition offered sensible and positive reforms, but the Labor Party, as we all know now, played the scare card with no respect for the truth in a desperate and unfortunately successful attempt to win government despite not having a plan for Australia's future, which they went on to demonstrate.This brings me to the issue of a goods and services tax: 55 per cent of respondents to my survey expressed support for a goods and services tax while 35 per cent opposed it and 10 per cent did not respond or did not have an opinion. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand (Mr Beazley), in his response to the federal budget said that Labor would oppose a goods and services tax in the Senate whether Labor won or lost the next election. This is a stunning rebuke to our democracy and to the people of Australia. He is telling them that, whether they want tax reform, whether they want a goods and services tax, he will impose his view on the Senate irrespective of the decision of the Australian people.What I can tell 55 per cent of my constituents in Stirling is that Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, has no respect for their views at all. The Leader of the Opposition released his tax reform policy yesterday—a tax credit for low and middle income earners that will be gobbled up by the interest rate rises that Labor will instigate with their reckless policies. However, one needs only cast their mind back five years to know how realistic this policy is.Those who want to believe the Leader of the Opposition should remember the last time he promised tax cuts when he was opposing a goods and services tax. History records that, following their election in 1993, Labor increased the fuel tax, the FBT rate, the wholesale sales tax, the sales tax on wine, the Medicare levy and the sales tax on new motor vehicles, despite saying they would not. They said one thing; they did another. So when Labor say the same thing again, you need only go back to their recent record to see what they will really do—that is, they will not cut your tax but they will increase the tax paid by Australians. A vote for Labor is a vote for increased taxes.The recent budget also extended the work for the dole scheme. The concept of mutual obligation has widespread support in Stirling. The people of Stirling have given the work for the dole scheme a big tick of approval, with 85.2 per cent of respondents supporting the scheme. A mere 13.3 per cent opposed the scheme and 1.5 per cent did not respond. There was similar support for the scheme to be compulsory so that those in receipt of income support from the Australian taxpayer made a contribution to the community in return for that support. Of course, there should be conditions attached, such as the compulsory element being restricted by age.One area where the people of Stirling want greater incentive—and I think they speak generally for their fellow Australians—is when taking out private health insurance. I think the figures released last week that 700 people a day are dropping out of private health insurance confirm that greater incentives are required. A total of 83.1 per cent of respondents to the survey thought the private health insurance incentives were not sufficient. The message they passed on was that they wanted the incentives to be more attractive, and the overwhelming view was that this should be provided by way of tax deductibility for private health insurance.The other message that comes from this is that Labor stands condemned for never providing any incentive to take out private health insurance. Australians want to be able to take out private health insurance—they have always wanted to—but during the 13 years of Labor the lack of incentive to take out private health insurance, which forced people out in droves, made the task for this government of providing incentives much more difficult, as did the $10 billion deficit we inherited. However, the point remains that people want further incentives and, until those incentives are made available, we will not see great increases in membership of private health insurance. Having mentioned the $10 billion deficit this government inherited, it is fitting to note that the vast majority of the people of Stirling believe governments should not be able to spend more than they earn. A total of 72.6 per cent said that, like all families, governments should be forced to live within their means. It is—I should not need to remind honourable members—not the government's money but the Australian taxpayers' money that we are disbursing, and that is reason enough why it should be disbursed efficiently, responsibly and accountably. Only 19.6 per cent believed governments should be able to spend more than they received and, of these, many respondents indicated that it should only be allowed in emergencies. This is a ringing endorsement of the government's strategy to reduce the deficit it inherited from the former government when the member for Brand was the Minister for Finance. Further, it is also an endorsement of the government's charter of budget honesty, which ensures in future government must declare the true state of the nation's books at an election, something which Labor never wanted.The people of Stirling have also endorsed Australia's progression to a republic with an Australian as head of state. To the question of whether Australia should become a republic with an Australian as head of state, 69.5 per cent of respondents said yes, while 23.5 per cent wanted the status quo. They also indicated that their preferred method of choosing the head of state was by way of direct election by the Australian people. However, the survey showed that one change that was not wanted was to our Australian flag. The people of Stirling overwhelmingly supported the design of our flag as it is.In Western Australia, the Education Act is currently being rewritten, and I read recently that the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia was considering an amendment to the legislation which would make corporal punishment illegal. A total of 72.5 per cent of respondents to my survey indicated that they supported corporal punishment, and I might add that I think it is something that should be available to principals and teachers. I would urge the government of Western Australia to make corporal punishment available at schools if the majority of the parents of students at the individual schools agreed to it. I can assure the House that corporal punishment did not harm me mentally, physically or in any other way when I received the cane virtually on a daily basis.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I thought it might explain a few things.6V5Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON—Some on the other side may disagree about the mental state, but it is a method of discipline that should be allowed back to schools, if only to serve as a deterrent. God knows what I would be like without that daily caning.One reason there is a lack of discipline in schools and in the community in general is that there is a lack of disciplinary measures available to those looking after the children. When students leave school having learned that you hardly get into trouble for mischievous behaviour, they think their misbehaviour can be continued indefinitely, which can and does lead to disrespect for our laws and therefore leads to crime.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—More gaol.6V5Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON—I do not seek to tar all young people with the same brush. The member for Corio just suggested more gaol, but I suspect there would be far less gaol if they got a good whack on the bum from time to time. But if we do provide for proper punishment in schools, we may prevent some young people from pursuing a life of crime outside school.Too often, politicians are accused of not listening to the people who employ them, the constituents they are elected to represent. My survey sought to elicit the views of the people of Stirling on a wide range of issues so I could better represent them. I thank the people of Stirling for their participation in the survey and urge all members to take their views on board.360117:36:003601O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Just under three weeks ago, on 5 May, representatives of a broad cross-section of the community in the City of Greater Geelong, where my electorate of Corio is based, came together to demonstrate their support for the Maritime Union of Australia in its battle to have its members reinstated to the jobs which are rightfully theirs, and to demonstrate their rejection of the failed policies of the now politically dead-in-the-water Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Peter Reith. Over 5,000 Geelong people marched and gathered on the Geelong foreshore that day to demonstrate their rejection of this divisive minister and the government to which he belongs.The Geelong Advertiser of the following day stated that this was the biggest demonstration in Geelong since people came together in their thousands to fight this government's attempts to further lower tariff protection for the TCF and automotive industries. At the rally, it was openly stated that, at the last federal election, some workers thought after 13 years it was time to give the coalition a go. These workers had been lulled into a false sense of security by the `non-core' promise made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, that no worker would be worse off under his government.Unfortunately, many working people set aside the many measures that had been introduced by Labor governments over a period of 13 years to advance their economic position, and it is worth reflecting on many of those measures now. It was Labor that introduced compulsory superannuation to improve the standard of living of Geelong workers on their retirement. That superannuation coverage was increased from around 40 per cent of the work force to over 95 per cent over Labor's term in office.It was Labor that offered Geelong workers the protection of the federal award system when the Kennett government attempted to foist individual contracts on the region's work force. It was Labor that built and maintained the Medicare health system that enabled low income Geelong families to access quality health care. It was Labor that lifted the retention rates in Geelong schools after years of neglect by state and federal Liberal governments and greatly expanded places at the Gordon Technical College and Deakin Uni versity to enable the sons and daughters of Geelong workers to improve their standard of living through accessing greater educational opportunities.Indeed, it was Labor that stood firm in its support for a decent industrial relations system where the collective bargain was underpinned by the award system. It was Labor again that expanded the access of families to child care, which enabled many working families to supplement the household income through both partners working.All these measures—and there are many more—were expressly designed to provide workers and their families with both security and opportunity in a rapidly changing economic environment which they were struggling to understand. These people did not anticipate the cruel and the premeditated attack by John Howard and his arrogant Treasurer (Mr Costello) on their living standards. They did not anticipate the attack on child-care funding, on university funding, on the public health system, nor the insecurity introduced into their working lives by a Workplace Relations Act deliberately designed to shift the balance of negotiation from employee to employer to strip workers of their hard fought for conditions of work and, in some cases, reduce their income earned through their labours.Prime Minister, where is your much vaunted security now? Do the 450 highly skilled aerospace workers you sacked at ASTAAS have any security at all? Can workers in Geelong's carpet factories or automotive industries feel secure and comfortable knowing that this government would scrap tariff protection given half a chance? Mr Howard, what about the workers who have been the victim of your downsizing or closing of Geelong government offices such as Customs, the CES, Immigration, Australia Post and Telstra? Are they more secure now that they are out of work?What about the young Geelong hospitality industry apprentice I heard about today who was dismissed after returning from a bout of pneumonia? This boy had been employed with that employer for eight months, but your legislation enabled the employer to summarily dismiss him because your legislation gives no protection for a young worker who is with his or her employer for less than one year. Is that young apprentice more secure as a result of your legislation? Where is the balance between worker and employer rights in the Howard government's legislation?The Howard government has stood idly by and has done nothing to force employers to meet their legal obligations to workers following a corporate collapse. Workers at Grafton, Cobar, Colac and many other hard-pressed towns have lost substantial amounts of money owed for redundancy payments, long service leave and holiday pay. Did these workers feel more secure because of your inaction?But members of the coalition opposite are indeed lucky. Labor is giving them a chance to demonstrate that they are truly committed to taking a more even-handed approach to industrial relations. The shadow minister, the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), has given them a real chance to add to the sense of security of Australian workers with the introduction of his employment security bill. If the coalition was really committed to workers' security, it would support this bill which gives employees a chance to recover legal entitlements such as long service leave, redundancy pay and holiday pay, even in the event of a company becoming insolvent.But we all know that this government, particularly the minister for workplace relations, is not really on about making Australians more secure or really about governing for all of us. All the evidence points to the fact that this government is about division and conflict, about ripping away workers' rights and about lowering real wages and reducing conditions.Three weeks ago, Geelong workers showed what they thought of Mr Reith's approach. They gathered in their thousands to completely reject it, just as they gathered to reject Mr Costello's attempt to lower tariff protection for their jobs in the TCF and automotive industries. We are facing fundamental changes in the way we structure work and industrial relations as we approach the new millennium. But nothing this government has done indi cates that it is even aware of the real problems, let alone the solutions.Some of these challenges are how to solve the overwork/underwork paradox where those in work are working longer hours while there are many others either not employed or underemployed and the fact that many who do have jobs feel very insecure and are under great stress. Much of the employment growth has been part time and casual and often is very lowly paid. Older workers, especially those over 45, often have real difficulty in finding work once they have been retrenched.How to secure worker entitlements after a corporate collapse, the increasing centralisation of work in the larger centres at the expense of rural and regional communities—these are the real challenges canvassed by the shadow minister for industrial relations at an industrial relations conference in Sydney in February this year. I do not pretend that this list is an exhaustive one, but one would think that a government which came to power with a promise to tackle unemployment and to make us all feel secure would have given some thought at least to these fundamental changes.The framework in which Labor will pursue its approach to industrial relations after it wins the next election is set out clearly in the policy platform which was endorsed at Labor's national conference in February 1998. The industrial relations legislation should be amended to put fairness back into it, to give a greater role to the AIRC to act in the national interest and in the interests of fairness, to restore the powers of the AIRC to deal with any industrial matter, to re-establish comprehensive and effective award coverage, to change the emphasis from an approach based on sanctions to one based on conciliation, to reduce excessive legalism and prohibitive cost barriers to accessing rights, and to abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate. Those are the commitments we will give to the Australian people at the next election and beyond, and those will be the measures that will be delivered by the next Labor government.360317:46:003603Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I rise today to announce that the opening of the Brunswick Heads bypass, a very important development in my electorate of Richmond, will take place in the next couple of weeks. Roads are a major issue in my electorate and the way the previous ALP government neglected roads was a national disgrace. However, a lot of that has been rectified in the last two years.The federal and New South Wales governments have taken major strides in implementing the Pacific Highway upgrade program since it commenced in 1996-97. The program will provide long-lasting traffic and safety benefits for all users of the highway, and in particular it will reduce the transport costs of goods in regional Australia. Since the coalition took office, two important Pacific Highway upgrade projects have already been completed in the electorate of Richmond—the Chinderah bypass, at a cost of $67 million, and the Bangalow bypass, at a cost of $5.5 million.The Chinderah bypass, which crosses the Tweed River and bypasses both Chinderah and Kingscliff, has provided a number of benefits to local communities, particularly those wishing to turn off into Fingal Head—there is now a safe turn-off—but it also provides a great benefit to the thriving Kingscliff community which has recently completed its main street redevelopment program. I congratulate Kingscliff, its chamber of commerce and the community organisations which have revitalised Kingscliff into a very pleasant place for shopping and dining.The bypass has also provided proper access into Tweed Heads and, being the major artery into the Pacific Highway, it has provided proper access across the border for goods. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) visited Kingscliff both before and after that program. On his second visit we had breakfast al fresco at Dot's by the Sea, and the member for Farrer claimed that it was the best breakfast he had had outside his own electorate. I hope that is true.Three other projects are under way: the Brunswick Heads bypass, the Ewingsdale to Tyagarah upgrade and the Chinderah to Yelgun motorway. The construction of the Brunswick Heads bypass was a specific election commitment, and I certainly campaigned vigorously on this issue in 1993 and particularly in the 1996 election campaign. Therefore, I am delighted that our commitment will be met in full on Friday, 5 June 1998, when the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) and his state counterpart will visit the Richmond electorate to officially open this road.This new $21 million bypass runs 3.4 kilometres from the Brunswick River to Saddle Road on the western side of the town. It will be an extremely welcome development for residents of the Richmond electorate in general, and particularly for the long-suffering citizens of Brunswick Heads who have been lobbying for this much needed bypass for decades. In fact, it will change Brunswick Heads for the better, dramatically and permanently. All residents will sleep better, not only because of the reduced noise at night but also because they know that the town will be a safer place for their children. The good reputation that Brunswick Heads has as a tourist destination can only be enhanced by the Pacific Highway being out of that small town.The realignment of the Pacific Highway between Ewingsdale and Tyagarah was also made possible by the defeat of Labor at the last election. People in the Byron shire know that works have been going on for many months. I am pleased to announce that this $22 million upgrade should be completed in four months—by September 1998. A further section at the turn-off to Byron Bay is also in need of urgent attention to provide a safer intersection. I hope that there is a continuing close relationship with the state government on that project.The Chinderah to Yelgun motorway project is huge. It is a $224 million project to avoid the dangerous Burringbar ranges and, at the end of the day, save Australian lives. People are already voting with their feet—or in this case their cars—with 14,000 vehicles a day using the alternative coastal road which runs through Kingscliff, Cabarita-Bogangar, Hast ings Point and Pottsville. This Tweed coast road has thus become the de facto Pacific Highway. This was never the intention for the route and it is becoming a serious problem for local residents in those community villages.The Commonwealth has put up its share of the money for the new motorway. I hope that the New South Wales government will do likewise in its budget on 2 June 1998. The project, as I have said many times on the record, is not proceeding with the speed I would like, as it is currently held up by another environmental impact statement. Nevertheless, construction is scheduled to begin early next year—and not a moment too soon for the people of the Richmond electorate.The question should be posed: what would have happened under Labor if it had been in government today? The answer is: not a lot. When in government, Labor neglected the Pacific Highway and, despite previous assurances to the contrary, the Keating government ceased funding for the Pacific Highway in 1993. Eventually, the government did sign a deal with the Carr government in NSW, however, as no funding was allocated, one can only assume that this was another l-a-w tax cut type promise.By contrast, the coalition federal government and the New South Wales state government are jointly contributing towards a 10-year $2.2 billion major rebuilding program for the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. Of course, we are also involved in the extension of the Pacific Highway with the Queensland government. I might add that this is the biggest infrastructure project since the Snowy Mountains scheme was instigated back in the 1950s and 1960s.The program will significantly improve highway driving conditions, eliminate accident black spots and cut overall journey times through the major rebuilding and duplication of the existing highway. The Commonwealth contribution is a massive $750 million, of which $600 million will be spent in New South Wales. The coalition government has also reinstated the federal road safety black spots program which was previously axed by Labor. It was reintroduced in last year's budget and has funded over 800 projects across the nation, mainly in regional Australia, at a cost of $73 million. Similar funding has also been allocated this year.In conclusion, the coalition has begun the arduous task of fixing Australia's transport infrastructure after 13 years of Labor neglect. There is still a long way to go, and it is much harder when you have to do it without raising taxes while still running budget surpluses to pay back Labor's debt. But I am confident that the coalition government will not stray from its determination to fix Australian roads. That determination to provide safer roads and to provide roads that reduce travelling time and enable easier access to regional villages and communities throughout my electorate of Richmond is widely welcomed by its constituents.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Order! I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees360536053605Motion (by Mr Miles)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund to present its advisory report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill be extended to 1 June 1998.3605360510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to an extension of time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on its inquiry into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment currently being negotiated by the Australian government to 1 June 1998.Bills3605r5313605Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.17:55:003605McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I rise to support the excellent speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday following the budget. At this stage, this speech would normally be given by my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the deputy leader and member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) but, because of the time that has been set for this debate, he is unfortunately unable to attend. He will be delivering that major speech on behalf of the opposition at a subsequent stage in this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the opposition in support of the leader on this very important occasion.It is a very interesting stage. We are here such a short period after the budget, but the budget has disappeared. It has disappeared from public view for no very surprising reason: it is a budget that has nothing to say about the future of Australia. It has no vision for the 21st century Australia other than a new tax, which it did not refer to. It was like Basil Fawlty saying, `Don't mention the war.' It was a speech which did not mention the big issue to which it really related—the government's proposed new tax. The government is still desperately trying to keep that tax under wraps. It is trying to keep it hidden as long as possible in the hope that what is so unacceptable about it to Australians might not be noticed until the election and that they might be able to obfuscate and diffuse the debate and sneak to the polls with what they would then claim to be a mandate—a mandate for that which they have kept secret.What was the only selling point of the budget? There were no measures in it; never have we seen a budget with fewer measures. The spending proposals are being held back for the election and the tax proposals are being held back for the tax package. There was this empty space and they dumped what pretended to be a budget in it, and its one selling point was a surplus. If the surplus is delivered, it will be the fifth surplus since John Howard delivered to us the 1981-82 deficit and then perpetuated it in 1982-83. The only four surpluses that were delivered in that 15-year period were delivered by the previous Labor government, between 1987-88 and 1990-91. If it is achieved in the next financial year, it will be the fifth. It has not happened yet. It is not money we can spend, it is not in the bank, and I think the surplus may not be as substantial as first indicated.A surplus is appropriate at this stage in the economic cycle, as it was in the 1987-88 to 1990-1991 period. If the growth is sustained, as the government proposes, and if its budgetary forecasts are sustained, we have already as an opposition committed ourselves to deliver three surpluses in the three budgets of a Beazley government. This is the first time an opposition has made such a commitment. In that 1987-88 to 1990-91 period the coalition in opposition had a couple of chances to make that commitment. They were going to the polls in circumstances either of a budget being in surplus or of a surplus being in prospect, but we did not get any such commitment. This is the first time. It is a commitment that has been made notwithstanding our having some very serious apprehensions about the robustness of the government's forecasts. We are concerned about its forecasts on growth, on jobs growth, on the current account deficit and, consequently, on the budget surplus, because growth and jobs growth are fundamental to whether we achieve a budget surplus and the current account deficit is fundamental to the need to do so.I do not want to dwell on these aspects for too long—they are primarily the responsibility of the shadow Treasurer—but let me talk about them briefly. Why are we worried about the robustness of the forecast on growth—modest growth that it is, less growth than was inherited? It is because the independent commentators express grave doubts. Market Insights by Westpac, not renowned for being a Labor think tank, has predicted that the GDP growth is expected to decelerate from 3.5 per cent in 1997-98 to 2.5 per cent in 1998-99, substantially less than that which the government is forecasting with its proposal for three per cent growth. The prediction is 2.5 per cent or, alternatively expressed in that same document in calendar year terms, 2.8 per cent in 1998 and 2.8 per cent in 1999.I will comment in a moment about the job growth implications of that but, just so we do not think that is a one-off, let me quote the senior economist with Societe Generale, Mr Glenn Maguire. He said that he expected growth to fall below the government's three per cent prediction for 1998-99. He went on to say that it would leave the unemployment rate stuck above eight per cent for the year.Let us look at the comment of the senior economist with Westpac, reflected in, but not part of, these forecasts to which I have just referred in their subsequent Market Insights publication. He said that the government had been too optimistic about growth in our major trading partners, especially those embroiled in the Asian crisis. He said further:The Government still expects 2 per cent growth in South-East Asia, but we expect a negative for those economies.I am being very polite because I have not mentioned Dr Hewson's comments about the budget, but the independent commentators—those from the conservative perspective overall—are saying the growth estimates are too high. But even if you accept them, the job growth estimates are just incredible. It strains credibility to believe that in a year when GDP growth is forecast to fall from 3¾ per cent to three per cent, jobs growth is expected to go up from 1¼ to 1¾ per cent; and when the Treasurer (Mr Costello) was asked for an explanation in here he could give none.It just strains credibility, and it has strained the credibility of the independent commentators. For example, Westpac's Market Insights has suggested that in calendar year 1998 the unemployment rate will be 8.2 per cent; in 1999, 8.3 per cent; and by the end of the century, 8.2 per cent—in other words, higher than it is now; unemployment up, not down. I think that is entirely within the parameters of reasonable expectation, given the circumstance of economic growth in which we find ourselves and the overall array of support measures that the government has in place. Some measure of security, some stability, some safety!What we are talking about is unemployment by the end of the century being higher than it is now—not a very controversial recommendation because the government itself has forecast that in the next financial year the average rate of unemployment will be higher than the current rate. It is saying unemployment will go up. It is hoping that by the end of the year it will be marginally down—by about 0.1 per cent—but the average rate it is forecasting for the next financial year is eight per cent, above the current rate. Some security. So much for the stability and safety that the government is claiming.We then have the problem with the current account deficit where the government has forecast $31 billion, and everybody knows it may well be more. The only reason it may not be worse is if domestic growth is less than the government forecasts; therefore imports are down because exports are collapsing, and the government is providing no support to our exporters. The government cut the support entirely inappropriately in 1996. In the face of this export crisis which we confront in our region, they have provided nothing in this budget. This problem with the current account deficit imposes a discipline on us all. We have never had a current account deficit rising so fast with growth so slow. It usually has been driven by rapid domestic growth, but the overall rate of growth is such that unemployment is going up and the current account deficit is going up.The government have abandoned all attempts to fix private savings. They do have in train their savings rebate, but not even they believe that that will increase the overall level of national savings. It is highly probable that public savings, as a consequence of the rebate, will fall more than private savings will go up. In fact, it was very interesting to read the Age on Saturday with Ross Gittins quoting the Treasury. He was talking about the factors which are likely to lead to an increase in private savings in the coming decade—and I think he is right. He said, first, that sustained low inflation—which we have had for about the last five years—is a more favour able environment for saving. Secondly, the compulsory employee superannuation which the then opposition, the now government, strenuously opposed—they substantially reduced the capacity for it to go from nine per cent to 15 per cent—has been wiped out. But even that residue which is left of the excellent superannuation policy should add about 2.1 percentage points to private savings over the next decade. Thirdly, Ross Gittins spoke of demographic change, which really means the government expect the baby boomers to start saving for their retirement.I think that is quite a good assessment by Ross Gittins, based on the Treasury analysis. Did you notice what the Treasury did not say? The dog that did not bark was the savings rebate. Nobody thinks that is going to have an impact on the level of private savings—not even the Treasury, not even the government. And they are quite right. What they are doing is rewarding the people who already have the capacity to save, but there is no incentive to save there at all.The private savings rebate, at its very best, is useless. Any other analysis would say it is a negative. The government has scrapped the advancement of superannuation and thrown too much of a burden on public savings. But, if we are successful at the next election, we will inherit that circumstance and we will need to focus on public savings. That is why we have made the commitment that we have about three surpluses and why we are concerned that the nature of the surplus is at risk—because the comments that I made about the nature of the government's estimates, which I think are fairly mainstream comments, have profound implications for the budget surplus. A quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, extracted from the budget papers, says:A half percentage point drop in the rate of employment growth would cost $330 million in revenue. A one percentage point increase in the number of unemployment recipients would cost another $280 million.So you can see that it does not take much of a parameter shift for those apparently robust surpluses to begin to be much weaker.I make this commitment. As an opposition we will try and if elected as a government we will seek to maintain a surplus sufficient to take account of the possibility and our concern that the estimates are over optimistic. That is a not a commitment that could go on forever. If the Asian crisis has much more impact than anybody currently foresees and if the whole economic forecast and budget parameters change, nobody, not this government nor the opposition, could say that our budget outcome circumstance will be the same. That is obviously impossible because of the impact of so-called automatic stabilisers on budget outcomes. But provided the outcome is within the parameters that I have just spoken about, we will seek to maintain that commitment which we have given.How will we do that? Members of the government have been claiming that there have been commitments made by the Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers which do not conform with that pledge. I am very relaxed about saying that when the election comes and we release the detailed costings—the revenue side, the savings side and the balance which flows from that—they will amply demonstrate the strength and rigour with which the commitment has been made and sustained. I am quite confident of that.Let us talk explicitly about the circumstance as we find it today. There have been, as is entirely appropriate, a number of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and by shadow ministers of our priorities and directions. There have been many indications of changes made by this government which we have vehemently opposed. Had we been the government, we would not have made them. The shadow Treasurer has outlined the alternative budget strategy which we would have had. But that water has flowed under the bridge. We cannot go back to 1996 and say that there should have been a different strategy.An incoming government will inherit a given set of facts. We cannot all at once fix all those changes with which we disagree. As the Leader of the Opposition is wont to say, `Rome was not built in a day, but Nero burnt it down in two.' It is much easier to wreck a framework of good social policy than it is to re-establish it or than it was to put it there in the first place. A substantial amount of damage has been done to our social fabric, which we can start to repair but which we may not be able to repair in one term. We have made one explicit costed major commitment; that is, the commitment made—apart from in other places—in this House of $500 million for nursing homes over three years. We have made some smaller commitments, very few with explicit dollar commitments about so many dollars over so many years. For example, yesterday we made a $6 million commitment over four years for contemporary music.A number of other explicit policy commitments of a no-cost nature have been made. We have said that there will be no up-front fees for universities under an incoming Labor government. We have said, in my own area of industrial relations, that we will introduce legislation about employment security and about the wage guarantee fund. Those are not matters which impinge significantly on the Commonwealth budget. We have talked about some savings, and about the abolition of the Productivity Commission and the Office of Employment Advocate. We have made a commitment to replace those with agencies or activities in accordance with our more positive priorities but at no greater cost to the budget than the Productivity Commission or the Office of the Employment Advocate.We have also given some important indications of direction and intention. For example, the shadow minister for health has made it clear that the opposition, if elected, will increase funding for public hospitals, and we will. The nature and extent of that commitment is something we will make clear at a time of our choosing between now and the election. The shadow minister for employment has made it clear that there are a series of initiatives which we will take about employment and training and we will implement and outline those and cost them quite rigorously between now and the election.We will be looking at developing and making explicit to the people of Australia an alternative framework for the role of govern ment in a 21st century economy. The role of government in the provision of education and training of our work force, the role of government in research and development, the role of government in the provision of economic infrastructure and, in the climate which we will face in the foreseeable future, the role of government in supporting our exports are the four key areas in which a contemporary government can play a part in creating a growing economy. They will be part of our priority.In this budget there is nothing but a continuation of cuts or, at the very least, failure to repair past damage. This is a budget of very bleak images, a desiccated view of the future of our society, a desiccated view of the opportunities for young Australians looking for education or for jobs, a very bleak view for families who are looking for child care or for confidence in the public health system and a very bleak view about security for older Australians who are concerned about health, nursing homes and their children and grandchildren.We hear a lot of talk about security, safety and stability. You will only look to have a future of security, safety and stability under this government if you have no children, no parents, you never get sick and you do not need a job. If you do not fulfil those four criteria then, I am sorry, security, safety and stability from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) are no more than the hollow rhetoric which they sound like.18:15:003609Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I rise tonight to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) in bringing down the third Howard budget under this government that will continue, I am certain, following the next election. In question time today, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) talked about security, safety and stability. I heard the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) repeat those words tonight in his contribution. I think that describes this budget and, indeed, the situation that Australia finds itself in today to a T.As the member for Canberra commented, the budget was not a headline issue today, as it was both the day before and the day after the budget was brought down. That is because it was such a responsible document and because Australians are basically happy with the budget. They are happy with a government that knows how to give them economic security, stability and safety.Fancy the people of Australia wanting to return to the high profile, high rhetoric time when Paul Keating was Treasurer. We all remember it, don't we: `This one is as good as it gets,' and `This one brings home the bacon.' We did not hear the Treasurer on budget night say that this was `as good as it gets'. He did not say, `This is the one that brings home the bacon.' What he said was, `This consolidates Australia's position in the South Pacific.' He said that we inherited a deficit of $10.3 billion and that by the end of June 1999 the Commonwealth should be in a budget positive position of $2.7 billion. That is a turnaround of $13 billion in three budgets. That is a phenomenal outcome, and one which even the Labor opposition ought to applaud.The member for Canberra talked a bit about Labor's spending priorities. He certainly implied that we need to stimulate the economy. He said that there were too many economists who were concerned that perhaps the growth rates in the budget, if not overstated, will not be met. He implied that the unemployment rates were impossible to meet because of a slight fall in growth in the overall economy, and yet there has been a decrease in unemployment. He seemed to cast doubt on the figures.If Labor feel it necessary to stimulate the economy in order to keep all the promises that shadow ministers are making—which the member for Canberra denies are costed promises; nonetheless they keep making them—and they are going to keep all of these commitments, then this implies only one recourse. Because Labor would no doubt spend more were they ever to get back to the treasury bench again, that outcome, that achievement, will be through tax increases. That is really what Labor are saying. They would increase taxes so that all Australians pay more tax—not less tax, but more tax— and somehow that would stimulate demand in the economy and make Australia grow faster and be fairer.Our interest rates are the lowest they have been since 1970. Our inflation is as low as it has been since the early 1960s. The interest rates paid by small business today are the lowest they have ever been in recorded history. And there is a turnaround of $13 billion in three budgets. Do you know that by the end of June 1999, this government—the first Howard government—will have paid back $31 billion of Commonwealth debt, down from about $96 billion we inherited in March 1996? It is a huge turnaround. For Australia it is a comfort budget—stability, safety and security.There are a number of priorities that the budget sets out that I think are worth mentioning in the few minutes I have available to me. This budget extends the Commonwealth seniors health card to low income, self-funded retirees who are over the age pension age. It is considered that those who have provided for their own retirement should have some assistance with their most important issue of concern—and that is the cost of their health care. This is another benefit to self-funded retirees.An additional benefit is taxation rates which recognise that those who provide for their own retirement, who provide for their own income once they have ceased active working life, should be treated no differently tax-wise than those who are on the age pension. It is this government that has done that for self-funded retirees. It has now given them the Commonwealth seniors health card, which is the one thing that that group has been speaking for, asking for, begging for, year after year. In my electorate of La Trobe, the extension of the gold card to World War II veterans who served with the Australian armed forces, at a cost of about $500 million over the next four years, has been warmly received. The veterans are very pleased that that recognition has been given.The budget includes an aged care package that will provide greater assistance to our elderly to stay in their homes, while providing greater support for their carers as well. This is an important initiative that would not make headlines day after day, but it is important to consider, as we think about the whole issue of health, that increasingly those who are elderly would prefer to stay in their own homes as long as possible; they would rather not go to hostels and nursing homes if they can avoid it. So it is incumbent on us to help them to stay in their homes, to make sure that they have proper medical attention, to make sure that they do not fall ill and become unable to communicate with those outside their own homes.Small business, which has been a major beneficiary of a number of initiatives of this government, will now have the provisional tax uplift factor reduced once again—now down to five per cent. That is half the rate that applied under Labor when I was elected to this parliament in 1990. It is a saving for business and individuals in the order of $75 million in provisional tax payments in the coming year. I would think that small business would be absolutely delighted with that initiative, as I am certain they are delighted with the low interest rates.I remember that, in 1990 when I came into this House, colleagues of mine were talking about paying 24 per cent overdraft rates or 24 per cent interest rates on investment properties. It was killing the industry. A lot of businesses are not here today because of those punishing interest rates in 1990 and 1991. Labor absolutely decimated small and medium sized business during those times. When Australians come to the next poll—whenever it is; some time between now and next May—they are going to remember what Labor did to them in the recession that we had to have, and they will vote appropriately.I return again to security, safety and stability. In 1998 the highest-ever number of fully funded undergraduate student places in university will be made available: 361,925 places—10,000 more than the total number of places made available in 1996 under the former Labor government. There is $176 million for literacy programs for school students, including some $25 million for the national literacy and numeracy plan—the aim of which is have every child reading and writing properly by the end of primary school. I applaud the continuing efforts of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), because he has taken up the literacy issue with an absolute determination and dedication to get it right. This is an issue that the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis), who sits at the table, knows that I have fought strong and hard on for a very long time. I compliment the minister on maintaining the pressure on the states and on the school system to make sure that every child learns to read and write the English language at the proper level at the proper age.18:26:003611Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In beginning my comments on the 1998-99 budget I would like to remind members of these words with which the Treasurer (Mr Costello) began his budget:In March of 1996 our country set out on a new journey.That raises the question: what sort of a journey has it been? Listening to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) one would think it has been a journey where Australians, full of cheerful pride and stoicism, have borne cuts to health, education, social services and welfare, buoyed by the knowledge that their sacrifice was for the national good. One would think that the pain was made all the more acceptable because it was shared equally—from each according to his means—and we had emerged on the other side, thankful for the lessons our trials had taught us, thankful for the foresight the leaders had shown and ready to savour the `exciting possibilities'—to use the Treasurer's words—which the future held for us.If you believe the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—as they jostle each other to see who gets to ride the donkey into Jerusalem—Australians are now lining up to throw rose petals and cover the road with palm leaves, joyous in their gratitude and indebted to the coalition's wise leadership. And so ends the fairytale. That is the picture the Prime Minister and the Treasurer want us to buy. That is the picture the Prime Minister and the Treasurer think Australians are stupid enough to buy. With all the snake oil sincerity of the Dodgy Brothers incarnate, the Prime Minister and Treasurer want us to swallow the notion that two years ago Australia was heading down a path to irretrievable economic destruction and it was only their swift action that stopped us reaching our final destination.There is no doubt that Australia has been diverted from the path it was on two years ago, but it was not a path of economic ruin that we were on. In early 1996 we were a far more united country, a fairer country, a more confident country. The path Australia had chosen to take was clearly aimed at reaching a final destination that was economically and socially advantageous to all. Two years later, divisions have opened up between rich and poor, between black and white, and between the city and the country—divisions that are as deep and as wide as Californian fault lines—and tumbling into the cracks has gone much of the fairness and confidence the previous Labor government had spent 13 years putting into place.We have been led down a path that has resulted in many Australians being deprived of access to the services and institutions, and of the equity and fair play they believed to be the hallmarks of civil society in this country. The Treasurer's journey—a journey characterised by over two years of misguided recrimination, economic thuggery and destitute leadership—has been anything but fair. The Treasurer said in his budget speech:We marked out the places we wanted to get to.And get to them they have. The unemployed, working parents, low income families, people needing public health care, the elderly, university students, migrants and Aborigines were all marked by the Treasurer early in his term of office and got to, one by one.In my electorate of Prospect and throughout western Sydney it is quite easy to see where the Treasurer has been over the past two years and how big a stick he had with him when he was there. Take child care, for example. There is no better place to see the Treasurer's teeth marks up close than the public child-care system in my community. The major child-care service provider in my electorate is Fairfield City Council. Since the Howard government axed operational subsidies to its community based child-care centres, costs have risen by 26 per cent. The average fee for Fairfield City Council's child care is now $176 per child, per week.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—Before the house adjourned I was talking about the disastrous effects this budget is having in electorates such as mine. I had touched on child care and how Fairfield City Council is one of the largest community based child-care providers in our area. At our child-care places now, the fees have gone up something like $176 per child per week because of this government. Now, with its decision in this budget to freeze child-care payments to families at a maximum of $115 a week, there remains a substantial gap for parents on lower and middle incomes to try to bridge. The many who cannot afford it are paying in different ways.There are obvious signs that women in my area are cutting down their work hours or leaving their jobs entirely because the price of child care is now beyond them. Those who have the option of relatives, friends and grandparents are calling upon them to step into the breach and provide a free child-minding service. In some parts of my community there is even anecdotal evidence to suggest that young, unemployed people are now being paid, on the cheap, to stay at home and act as untrained child carers. What sort of effect this will have on children we can only wonder. I imagine we will find out as they progress to school and the learning and behavioural problems they have developed become apparent.Recently representatives from Fairfield City Council appeared before the Senate Community Affairs Committee's inquiry into child-care funding. The picture they painted should give any clear-minded member of this House food for thought. In 1997 there were 46 vacancies in 10 council operated long day care centres. Now in the same 10 centres there are over 620 vacancies. As vacancies take their toll, draining centres of valuable funds, many are facing up to the fact that they may not be around in the future.There are community centres in my electorate operating with deficits of around $85,000. This is untenable. The tragedy is that, as they close, working families are losing valuable pieces of social infrastructure—services that, more than likely, will never return to my community.This is the result of two years of the Howard government's handiwork. It is a story that is repeated throughout Australia, in electorates represented by all shades of the political spectrum. This being the case, many Australian families expected the Treasurer's most recent budget to rectify some of the mistakes made in relation to child care. They were most seriously let down. This budget does nothing to repair the damage, despite the fact that the dramatic effects of the government's harsh cuts appear in the Treasurer's own budget papers in black and white.Looking at the budget, we can see that the government will spend almost $300 million less on child-care assistance over the next three years than it anticipated. This is because hundreds of families have withdrawn their children from care as a result of the rising fees and no longer require that payment. The absolutely insulting part of the story is that this extra money is not going back into child care to make it more affordable for parents.Instead of getting real assistance and a real injection of funds, what does this budget give us? It gives us $600,000 for a child-care communications strategy—a phone-in line to tell parents how great their funding starved child-care system is, and how easy it is for them to use. I challenge the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) or the Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan) to come into my electorate—into the electorate of Prospect in western Sydney—and crow about their little initiatives to working parents struggling to keep their kids in care. We shall see how long it takes before those ministers are run out of town.In my community, the median family income is $11,000 a year—that is $224 per week. That is $224 to spend on the essentials and then, with what is left, to make up the $60 or so gap between what is being charged for weekly child care and the assistance the federal government is offering. The fact that there are still parents out there who can afford it is beyond me. The fact that more and more cannot is certainly no surprise.Last week I called on the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils—or WSROC, as it is referred to—to consider carrying out a regional social impact study on the effects that rising child-care costs are now having in western Sydney. I would warmly welcome any initiative that it may pursue in this regard—perhaps it is a project that can be done in collaboration with the New South Wales state government. WSROC is a fine regional organisation and it pursues the interests of the western Sydney councils and shires it represents with great vigour and determination. I believe the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay), who is at the table, could not deny its work. I cannot think of many more pressing or important issues than the crisis surrounding child care in our region for it to pursue in the near future.Another large section of my community that has been let down grievously over the past two years, and one which will find no solace in this budget, is the unemployed. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) have already said that the Treasurer's budget surplus has been built on the backs of the unemployed—it has been built on the backs of their families and the communities in which they live as well. No section of Australian society has been so savagely attacked in the Howard government's previous two budgets as the unemployed.Over $2 billion has been cut from programs and services designed to assist the jobless—particularly the long-term jobless—to find work. With employment programs bled of the necessary funding to keep them afloat, the government's next step was as predictable as it will ultimately prove to be disastrous. Out went the old and in came the new—the Job Network, a system that supposedly represents the brave new world of employment. If only!Employers in my electorate cannot even get through to the network's primary job agency, Employment National, to try to give their jobs away. Not that they would be able to give a job away even if they got through on the line. Employment National and other private agencies are quoting prices upward of $250 to prospective employers within my electorate who want to use their services.This government has deserted the long-term unemployed. For evidence of that we need go no further than the most recent unemployment figures. The number of long-term unemployed people in Australia increased by 6,400 in April, according to the ABS statistics. There are now over 33,000 more people in the ranks of the long-term unemployed than when the Treasurer brought down his first `scorched earth' budget in May 1996. In the same period, the proportion of people unemployed for a year or more has risen from one in four to one in three.What relief does this budget bring? None. In fact, it cuts another $148 million from the employment services sector. The unemployment rate in the Fairfield-Liverpool region is now roughly double the national average. Unemployment lies at the root of some of our most serious problems—crime, drug addiction and family breakdown.The people I represent did not expect the Howard government to solve our unemployment problems overnight, nor did we even expect them to bring the jobless rate down to manageable levels within a year. We did, however, expect the government to make a start at it. We did expect them to have something to show at the end of two years. We expected it because the Prime Minister promised us that it could be done and would be done. It has not been done and, while not a natural pessimist, looking at the government's form so far I no longer expect it to be done. The government's failure to seriously attack unemployment through any of its budgets—indeed, the very fact that its policies have provided the climate for the unemployment rate in regions like mine to stall—is the most serious betrayal of the faith shown to the Prime Minister by the Australian electorate in March 1996.Another area where the Howard government and the Treasurer have really created anxiety for lower and middle income families in western Sydney is health. The New South Wales state government needs an extra $350 million a year from the federal government if it is to keep its public health system from becoming unmanageable. The Howard government, while throwing $600 million a year at a failed private health insurance scheme—a scheme which just last week failed to stop the number of Australians with private health cover falling to an all-time record low of just over 5.8 million—says it can only manage to give the New South Wales government $17 million to help them with health.This latest budget produces not one extra dollar for public hospitals that was not on the table when the premiers walked out on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at the last Premiers Conference. This is disastrous news for my community. Currently, there are three major public hospitals primarily serving people within my electorate—Liverpool, Fairfield and Westmead hospitals—and they are under an enormous amount of strain. In February 1998, 752 people were on Fairfield Hospital's elective surgery waiting list, and 27 of these had been waiting for over a year. At the same time, over 1,600 were on Westmead Hospital's elective surgery waiting list, with 338 waiting for over a year.The blame for these enormous waiting lists cannot be apportioned to the New South Wales state government. It has lived up to its responsibilities. The New South Wales government has ploughed over one billion extra dollars into public health care since it came to office. It has reduced waiting times for elective surgery dramatically. Without the commitment of the state government, New South Wales's public hospitals would resemble the triage wards frequented by Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War. The blame for the public hospital crisis in New South Wales lies squarely at the feet of this Howard government.In his first two budgets, the Treasurer cut $3.6 billion from the health sector. Pharmaceuticals, Medicare, public hospitals and public dental care were all savaged. Now, with the private health sector haemorrhaging members at record levels, Fairfield Hospital needs another $3 million per year to cope with the extra 1,200 ex-private cover patients it will now have to manage. Liverpool Hospi tal is in a similar situation needing another $8 million. Westmead needs over $20 million to look after the nearly 8,000 extra people that will land on its doorstep over the next 12 months that were previously covered by private health care.What does the Treasurer's latest budget do to resolve this situation? It does absolutely nothing. To use the words of the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge):What do you expect from a Treasurer who believes that aged care is simply a matter of buying incontinence pads?Well said, Mr Health Minister.In the time remaining to me, I would like to make a comment on how this budget will particularly affect local schools in my electorate. The budget contains no new expenditure to help schools cope with the influx of students that will come through their doors when the government's youth allowance reforms begin to take effect. In the Fairfield-Liverpool area, as many as 730 unemployed 16- and 17-year-olds will have no alternative but to return to school—unwillingly, I might add—as their benefits are taken away from them under the new rules.The $24 million that has already been announced for New South Wales and Victoria is not even a drop in the bucket. My schools are going to be stretched to breaking point by kids who, in the first place, do not want to be there. What sort of disruptive effect that is going to have on the other students at the high schools in my electorate one can only guess. In his maiden parliamentary speech in 1990, the now federal Treasurer of this country said the following:Our system of government is one of checks and balances. It requires compromise—compromise between the Executive and the Parliament, compromise between one House and another, compromise between the States and the Commonwealth and compromise between groups of persons with legitimate interests and other groups with other legitimate interests.After witnessing the Treasurer's first three budgets, either he must have undergone a massive change of heart in the intervening years or he was never sincere in the first place. This Howard coalition government has explicitly rejected compromise in its last three budgets. The sharing of budget pain has been purely cosmetic. The reality is that sections of Australian society—yes, even those I would venture to say with `legitimate interests', to quote the Treasurer—have been squashed while others have remained untouched according to the government's sympathies.For two years, this government has wrenched some of this country's most valuable institutions and services out of the hands of the community and laid them at the feet of a minority of consumers. Now, as a result, working families and individuals in my electorate and right across Australia in electorates like mine find that these same services and institutions are outside their reach.The Treasurer calls the last two years in government `a journey'; I hope he and his coalition mates have enjoyed it because the people I represent certainly have not. It has been a sedan chair ride on the shoulders of those Australians least able to carry the load, and our nation is truly the poorer for it. I condemn the meanness of this and the last two budgets. I also condemn the Howard coalition government for not heeding the words of the electorate at large when they have appealed to them over child care, when they have appealed over the cuts that have happened with nursing homes, when they have appealed over the increases in pharmaceutical prices and when they have appealed because they no longer have free dental care or hearing aids.What more can we keep cutting from those people in our communities who are least able to stand up for themselves? We have the privilege and honour of standing up for those people in this parliament. We on this side of the House will continue to bring to the floor of this parliament the problems that are being experienced by the people of Australia. They will listen, they will know and they will condemn the Howard government for it, as I condemn his government's budget.20:14:003615McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—The reaction to the federal budget can be well summarised by Terry McCrann, a well-known economic commentator who is harsh to both sides of politics if he does not agree with their particular stance. He had this to say:(Peter Costello) has delivered on the commitment to get the Budget into the black in three years. And do so while broadly maintaining spending without punitive tax hikes.On that alone—without the fiddles and hype of the Keating-Willis years—he would have, and should have, won appropriate plaudits.He has set things up beautifully on all levels: for future budgets, good future economic policy, politically and to grease the wheels of all important tax reform.This can be summed up in two broad-brush numbers. He promises to make Australia all but free of government debt in three or four years and give us $6 billion or more in sort of real tax cuts.The benefit—for all Australians—of eliminating government debt cannot be overstated.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Does that include Howard's debt? I'm glad you've got a conscience about it at last.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—He continues:No government debt at the federal level would mean not having to pay around $8 billion in interest each year.The member for Corio would understand that. He goes on:Money that could then be spent on hospitals, on social welfare and/or returned to tax payers.That sums up the comments of that commentator. Mr Piers Akerman of the Daily Telegraph had this to say:After the smoke and mirrors employed by successive Labor Treasurers, the Coalition Budget may be almost a model of fiscal rectitude, but it isn't dull, except to those who are hooked on the heady adrenaline rush of crisis management.If you're looking for economic razzle-dazzle with a twist, pike and fireworks show, look in your Paul Keating scrapbook. This Budget is aimed squarely at the responsible, thinking Australians and will be respected by them.That summarises the general comment that the press, media commentators and international commentators made on the Costello budget. If we look at the actual figures, and I notice that the former Treasurer, the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), is in the chamber, I refer to the $10.3 billion black hole of the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). They told us during the election that the books were in balance. That was a lie. The charter of budget honesty will ensure that that never happens again in this parliament. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) now has the books back into a surplus position with $2.7 billion in 1998-99.The important feature that we should understand in this budget is the reduction of the $96 billion of federal government debt that was run up in the Keating years from $17 billion in 1991. The commentators and the public at large do not understand this overdraft commitment that the former Keating government drew up in those last five years. They stand condemned for that position. The current Treasurer has made amends by reducing that deficit by repaying approximately $31 billion of that debt in the next financial year. As members of this House would well recall, interest rates back in the Labor years rose as high as 17 per cent. They are now down to approximately seven per cent for housing rates, as a benchmark figure. Again, that is a very important fundamental figure that gives the budget a great impact on small business, farmers and house owners. Under the Labor Party, the inflation rate was averaged at five per cent, six per cent or seven per cent during the time they were in office. Inflation is now down to negligible levels.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—We broke the back of it. Why don't you tell the truth?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The member for Corio would not understand the figures. He does not understand economics. That is the problem. He wants to spend more money, as I know. Unemployment, which was 11.2 per cent average under the ALP, has now broken through the eight per cent barrier.In relation to the Asian crisis that has affected the Australian economy where we have this financial turmoil and, in more recent days, the Indonesian political and financial crisis, I think the budget papers put a very good perspective on the background to those arguments and the importance they have here in Australia. The currency problems, the equity market, the confidence of investors and the outflow of capital loans in those Asian countries has brought them to a very low ebb of economic activity and confidence in them by the rest of the world. A boom in assets, a boom in real estate prices, unchecked loans and short-term loans have brought about the present meltdown in Asia, which has affected Australia. Corporate governance has been challenged in those Asian countries where big banks, big government and big business were working together to try to bring about economic growth following the Japanese MITI model, which indicated that, with planning and with the combination of these groups, economic miracles could take place. As we all know, this has not taken place in South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.These loans have fallen short. That is why the present government has persuaded the International Monetary Fund to provide credit to Thailand, Indonesia and, to a lesser degree, South Korea, demanding that reform take place under the IMF program; that real growth take place and not just in asset values; that freer trade be undertaken by the countries without trade barriers; that there be transparency between government and business in their dealings; that there be competitive businesses and competitive government instrumentalities; and that there be a sale of government owned assets as has taken place in Australia to bring about efficiencies. The budget papers indicate that Thailand will improve somewhat, that South Korea may improve in the short term but there remain, obviously with the comments over the last week or so, considerable problems with Indonesia. In relation to a basis of corruption in the government and in business circles, members of this House would be aware of 190 million people of a Muslim background with political systems that are now under challenge with democratic processes. We see in our near northern neighbour effects on our own economy where that growth rate cannot pull Australia forward to better times, as has been the case over the last decade. The lessons from Japan are very important in terms of the way in which their economy is proceeding and its effect on Australia. Export growths are down. Import growths are down. There is a lower domestic demand and high public debt. Asset prices have escalated over the last 10 or 15 years well out of proportion to their true value. There is a weak financial sector as well as low productivity that has now not continued the pace of the early post-war years. Added to this is the ageing population of the Japanese meaning that there are resources being devoted to looking after older people. So we are looking at considerable difficulties with one of our major trading partners as to how they might perform over the next five or six years.In terms of the growth rates in other nations around the world, I think it is important to observe that the foundation laid by the Costello-Howard government's budget indicates that our growth rate for the next year is very encouraging compared with other OECD nations—an estimated growth rate of three per cent here in Australia being a conservative figure, not relying on the sorts of figures to `bring home the bacon' that Treasurer Keating used to quote to this House year after year. The USA is estimated to have a two per cent growth rate, less than Australia; Japan, 1.25 per cent and almost no growth in the last year; Germany, one of the powerhouses of the European economy, 2.75 per cent; and an average of 2.5 per cent in the OECD.Whilst those are encouraging, in concluding my remarks I will talk about the one dark side of the Australian economy—the current account deficit. Again, because the current government has battened down the hatches and has the fundamentals right, we will be better able to withstand the estimated $31 billion of current account deficit estimated in the next year.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—New Liberal debt.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I think all of us in this House, even the member for Corio with his lack of knowledge of economics, would be concerned about a current account deficit of $31 billion, which moved out from a projected figure of $17 billion in the last year. It will be a problem because of the Asian difficulties. It is interesting that Mr Alan Mitchell in the Australian Financial Review on 14 May had this to say about the current account deficit:The current account deficit will blow out . . . in 1998-99, as the strong domestic demand sucks in imports and export revenue falls on account of Asia's recession.The challenge is to convince the people who have to finance that deficit that Australia is no longer in danger of becoming a banana republic.Because that was the problem in the 1980s. It was the not the fact that the current account deficit tipped 6 per cent of GDP that caused the world to dump the dollar, it was the chronic economic problems that obviously lay behind the current account deficit: the public sector deficits; the relatively high rate of inflation; the inefficiency of the labour and product markets.That was the position. I think Mr Mitchell summarises it very well. Whilst some of us are concerned about the current account deficit, obviously the fundamentals that the budget put in place mean that we can weather the Asian storm, we can weather unforeseen commodity market falls around the world and we have a chance of recovering our position.Finally, whilst the government put the economy into a very sound financial position with this budget, we have been able to provide caring understanding by extending the seniors health card to 220,000 self-funded retirees. I commend the move. As all members of this House would be aware, that is a very disadvantaged group that has saved and struggled all their lives, and now they will be on a more even footing with other pensioner groups in the community. We have made the gold pass eligible to 50,000 World War II veterans. Again, I commend that move. We have also provided assistance to carers with a $280 million carers package.The budget not only has put our financial house in order here in Australia but has shown care and compassion to those disadvantaged groups without spending unduly. I commend the budget. I commend the framework within which the Treasurer has put the budget together. I commend the future prospects of the Howard government over the next three or four years. Obviously the financial base on which they have prepared this budget means that, in the next Howard government, it will be on a sound footing, unlike that of the previous Labor administrations who put debt upon debt, tax upon tax, and got us into this terrible position that we took over in 1996. 20:26:003618Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—Despite the attempts by the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) to shore up support for this budget by quoting such well-known independent observers as Terry McCrann and Piers Ackerman, I think it is true to say that this year's budget was generally assessed by the media as a do-little budget. What else could you expect from a budget that was brought down on International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Day?Indeed, the most newsworthy part of the budget concerns something that was not even in it, and that was the prospect of income tax cuts, which the Treasurer (Mr Costello) was talking up in his budget briefings to journalists on budget day and which became the major focus of attention in the press the next morning. But the real reason the budget was so ho-hum was that it was not the real budget. We will not see that until the election campaign when the government reveals its true intentions.Nevertheless, there are a number of aspects of this budget which I would like to refer to, firstly in relation to the budgetary position. The government tried to make much of the projected return of the underlying budget outcome to surplus in 1998-99, but the fact is that this result in this year is entirely fortuitous—that is, it is only because Treasury and Finance rejigged their previous budget estimates for 1998-99 to the tune of $2.9 billion so that the outlays were reduced by $1.1 billion and revenues increased by $1.8 billion that the surplus was actually achieved. Without these fortunate estimate variations the underlying budget outcome for 1998-99 would have still been a deficit.Such an outcome is particularly fortunate for the government, given that with a reduced economic growth forecast for 1998-99—that is, three per cent down from 3.75 per cent in 1997-98—one would have thought that the revenue estimates in particular would decline. When I was Treasurer the working rule of thumb was that a one per cent decline in GDP meant that you would have a reduction in revenue of about $1.5 billion. Here we have a three-quarter per cent decline on the earlier economic growth forecasts for 1998-99 but revenue is forecast to increase by $1.8 billion. Whatever the reason for that, it is the only reason the budget is now shown to be in underlying surplus. Without the revised revenue estimates the budget for 1998-99 would have shown an underlying deficit of a quarter of a billion dollars.As the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) has noted in her contribution to this debate, the Treasurer in his budget speech was much given to travel metaphors. He had much to say about how Labor had lost its way, how the government had set Australia out on a new journey, that with the budget back in surplus we are back on track and that it has been a tough road—much along that sort of line. I want to take up a number of these peripatetic points.Firstly, Labor did not lose its way. Labor left this government a level of government debt and a budget deficit that were very modest by international standards. We left the third lowest level of budget deficit as a percentage of GDP for any of the industrialised Western countries in the OECD. We also left the third lowest level of public sector debt as a percentage of GDP amongst OECD countries. So Labor did not leave the nation's finances in bad repair. Despite the constant comments like we just heard from the member for Corangamite about how bad the finances were and despite the whole lexicon of argument along those lines we have heard from the government throughout its period in office, that simply is in defiance of the facts. The fact is that both the government debt and the budget deficit figures were amongst the lowest in the Western industrialised world. That remains the undisputed fact of the situation. Labor did not leave the nation's finances in bad repair.Certainly, in the early 1990s we had gone from budget surplus to deficit because of the recession—a recession which afflicted virtually all other Western developed countries at that time. This deterioration of the budget happens automatically in a recession because, with negative growth, obviously revenues are down well below what they were previously projected to be and government expenditure—particularly unemployment benefits—goes up, so there is an automatic blow-out in the budget deficit. That is known in Keynesian terminology as an automatic stabiliser because it helps to minimise the recession by limiting the fall in demand.The Treasurer seems to believe in pre-Keynesian economics. He criticises Labor for the deficit and the consequent increased government debt in the context of the recession. He apparently believes—along with all those with him—that Labor should have reacted to the recession by cutting expenditure or increasing taxes to keep the budget in surplus. That is the obvious consequence of what they are saying. That is 1930s thinking. It was policies like those that made the 1930s depression so deep and disastrous in this country and in most countries around the world.Had Labor followed the now Treasurer's policies in the early 1990s, we would have had a far deeper recession or a depression with much more unemployment, but because Labor followed a more sensible policy, including some stimulatory action through the budget, the recession was relatively minimised but at the cost of a turnaround in the budget outcome from an underlying surplus of two per cent of GDP to a deficit of four per cent of GDP. By 1995-96, with the economy recovering strongly, the underlying deficit had been reduced to two per cent of GDP. Far from losing its way, Labor was reducing the deficit and bringing it back to surplus but in a way which was consistent with its objective of keeping economic growth and employment growth high and so rapidly reducing unemployment.What this budget clearly shows is that, even with no policy change whatsoever after the last election, the underlying budget balance would have fallen to $2.7 billion in 1998-99 or a half per cent of GDP. So, far from Labor's policies being endless deficit and debt as the Treasurer continually claims, Labor's policies, even with no further budget tightening measures, would have taken the budget balance down to at least a half per cent of GDP this year. In fact, it would have been further reduced because this government's harsh regime of expenditure cuts in its first two years undoubtedly reduced economic and employment growth. From over four per cent economic growth in each of the last three years of Labor—with an average of 4.4 per cent—GDP growth fell in 1996-97 to only 2.7 per cent and is forecast to come back to 3per cent in 1997-98, but still not at the four per cent level.With that working rule of thumb of Treasury I referred to before, the fact is that, with that reduced growth, there is a considerable loss of revenue as well as automatic increased expenditures. Thus, that reduced growth has cost the budget in 1997-98 at least a couple of billion dollars. With higher economic growth under Labor, the budget would have been near to balance.Labor had not lost its way. In fact, if Labor's policy of a more modest and phased program of budget tightening had been adopted—the one that we have been advocating since 1996 of a $1 billion a year budget tightening for three years to 1998-99—the budget outcome would be in the region of where it is now projected to be but with a significantly lower level of unemployment. That is, the economy would have been in a much better position to deal with the Asian crisis because significant progress in further reducing unemployment would have been made before the inevitable slowdown with the Asian crisis.In regard to the unemployed, the Treasurer's journey has quite clearly not led those people to the end of any golden rainbow. On the contrary, they have been led up a blind alley. Under this government, the unemployment rate has only fallen by a half per cent in two years and two months. The employment growth under this government has been appalling compared with that which was being achieved under the previous Labor government. In its first 26 months in office, this government increased employment by 236,000, compared with the growth in employment in Labor's last 26 months of 550,000—a difference of 314,000 jobs in the same period of time. That is a comparison of their first 26 months with our last 26 months. This is in the context of a coalition which went to the last election claiming it would improve on Labor's rate of job growth.So it is not surprising—given this tremendous shortfall in employment—that the unemployment rate has not fallen by more than a half per cent since this government came into office. In fact, the only reason it has fallen at all is the fall in the work force participation rate, from 63.8 per cent to 63.2 per cent. What that means is that there are 88,000 fewer people in the work force today than there would have been if the work force participation rate had remained at Labor's level. If that 88,000 had remained in the work force and been counted amongst the unemployed, the unemployment rate today would be 8.8 per cent. This government has not created enough jobs to reduce the unemployment rate at all. It has had to rely on its discouragement policies, like making child care less affordable and slashing funds for labour market programs, to discourage people out of the work force and so out of the unemployment statistics in order to reduce the unemployment rate.With reduced growth because of the Asian crisis, the government is now forecasting a rise in the unemployment rate back to over eight per cent during 1998-99, before hopefully returning to 7per cent in the June quarter of next year. But this forecast of a return to a below eight per cent unemployment rate a year from now depends on a highly dubious employment growth forecast of 1¾ per cent in 1998-99, compared with growth in employment of 1¼ per cent in 1997-98.This government has a record of bad employment growth forecasts. In 1996-97, the budget forecast for employment growth was 1½ per cent, but the actual outcome was only 1.1 per cent. In 1997-98, the budget forecast for employment growth was two per cent, but the actual outcome is now estimated at only 1¼ per cent. So this government has form in relation to grossly overoptimistic employment forecasts.Now they would have us believe that, with GDP growth forecast to fall from 3¾ per cent in 1997-98 to three per cent in 1998-99, employment growth will increase from 1¼ per cent to 1¾ per cent. To say the least, that strains credibility, especially as it implies a severe fall in labour productivity at the same time as the budget papers talk of an improved productivity performance. So, clearly, there is no more reason to believe this government on employment this year than there was in the previous two years—indeed, there is even less reason.The Treasurer's travel metaphor became particularly galling when, in his budget speech, he talked about the journey being a tough road but one in which the burdens had been shared. This is either a complete self-delusion or a scandalous misrepresentation. Quite clearly, some groups of people have been impacted far more heavily than others—for instance, the unemployed. The 300,000 people who have been deprived of a job because this government failed to keep up with Labor's employment growth rate are certainly doing it tough, much more so than, say, executives whose pay rates have continued to increase at a rate well in excess of the wage and salary earners generally or recipients of investment income who have been given a substantial tax break. I do not see them sharing the burden.Furthermore, the unemployed, having been led into a blind alley, have been ambushed. Labour market programs have been the major area for cutting expenditure—$1,860 million was cut in the 1996 budget and another $150 million was cut in this budget just for good measure. Unemployed people over 55 years of age have been made to use their superannuation entitlement, if any, before they qualify for unemployment benefits.In this budget, injured workers with workers compensation lump sums for pain and suffering due to their injury are required to use up any part of that lump sum over $10,000 before they qualify for any pension or benefit. So, if you lose a leg at work through some work accident and you get compensation to make up for the pain, suffering and loss of your limb, you are then supposed to spend the lot of it in lieu of unemployment benefits, which is a most appalling action by this government.The young unemployed, of course, are impacted by the youth allowance, which means they lose entitlement to unemployment benefits between the age of 18 and 21. Students, obviously, have been badly affected by various actions of this government as well as migrants, aged pensioners, nursing home patients, Aborigines and so on. The member for Prospect gave a very good elucidation of the impact of these cuts on various sectors of her electorate and, indeed, of the economy at large.These other groups directly affected by severe expenditure cuts have clearly been taken by this government down a very tough road. It is an insult to their and everyone else's intelligence to pretend, as the Treasurer does, that the pain of the budget tightening measures has been shared. Clearly, this government has gone about the return to surplus on the backs of the unemployed and other disadvantaged and needy groups in society. There has been no safety, security or stability for these people.A distinguishing feature of this budget has been the extent to which its economic forecasts have been met with some disbelief from various quarters. I have already mentioned the employment forecasts, but also subject to critical analysis have been the economic growth and current account forecasts for this year. The financial market analysts generally have regarded the economic growth forecast of three per cent as too high and the current account forecast of $31 billion, or 5¼ per cent of GDP, as too low. In both cases, it is because they believe the government has underestimated the impact of Asia on our exports.Similarly, the rating agency Standard and Poor's expressed scepticism about these forecasts, as did the former leader of the coalition John Hewson. Should these sceptics be right, the budget forecasts for revenue and the surplus will be adversely affected, and the prospects of reducing unemployment will become even more remote. Also, the current account will become an even bigger problem, foreign debt will increase faster and this government will be in danger of being run over by its own debt truck.Another reason for scepticism about these budget figures is that they show the under lying surplus rising to $14½ billion in the year 2001-02, or 2.1 per cent of GDP. As a consequence of that and of asset sales, especially Telstra, net government debt is shown as reducing to less than $10 billion in the year 2001-02. Apart from the uncertainty as to whether the government will ever get the Telstra sale through the Senate, these figures for surplus and debt reduction are most unlikely to be delivered, at least in anything like that time frame, because they make no allowance for income tax cuts.The last income tax cuts in this country were in November 1993—the 7th cut in income tax during Labor's 13 years in office. We averaged income tax cuts more than once every two years. There were seven cuts delivered in 13 years. It is now 4½ years since those income tax cuts, in which time the government has blatantly broken its election promise to implement Labor's policy to pay the second leg of the One Nation tax cuts as a means tested co-payment to employee contributions to superannuation.So, with no tax cuts year after year, the proportion of their incomes that people are paying in tax is increasing year by year because they are moving higher up the income tax scale against a fixed progressive structure and more of their income is subject to tax at higher marginal rates. Ironically, the Treasurer is using his own refusal to adjust the income tax scale to take account of bracket creep to justify the need for tax reform, which is code for the introduction of a GST. But this is a complete non sequitur. Bracket creep is a form of tax increase. Any tax cut that returns bracket creep does not have to be paid for by paying another tax. It has already been paid for through an increase in income tax as people's incomes move up the unchanged progressive income tax scale.In this year's budget, our calculations and reports of Treasury's calculations are that, since the 1993 tax cuts, bracket creep has added $4½ billion to revenue. To argue, as the Treasurer does, that if there is no tax reform people on average weekly earnings will soon cross into the 43c in the dollar range, up from 34c—and that happens at an income of $38,000—is ridiculous. What is true is that if there is not adjustment for bracket creep of the income tax scales at some stage then people on average weekly earnings will move into the 43c range. However, that is an argument for an adjustment of the income tax scale for bracket creep as has been done many times before; it is not an argument for a whole new tax or a GST.In the post-budget period, the Treasurer has argued for a change in the tax mix, with more emphasis on taxing consumption and less on taxing income. He has also said that he is not against using the surplus to return some benefit to taxpayers. This means that this government is clearly intending to dupe taxpayers by offering them tax cuts that they have already paid for as compensation for a GST. Taxpayers in this country clearly need to understand the nature of bracket creep. They need to understand that they have earned the income tax cuts that they are going to be offered. They have come through bracket creep because they have been paying more tax. They neither need nor deserve the GST. Most fundamentally, they need to understand that the income tax cuts that return bracket creep are no compensation at all for a GST. They should be paid in their own right and they do not need another tax to be brought in to pay for them.20:46:003622Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—It is interesting in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 to follow the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), a former Treasurer who left us with $96 billion in government debt. He has just explained why that was not a problem. He mentioned automatic stabilisers. On the Liberal-National Party side, we understand what automatic stabilisers are. We made a specific promise to restore the budget to balance over the economic cycle, but the problem is that we have got a bit of catching up to do.The economy has been in recovery since 1991. We have just heard from the previous speaker who was Minister for Finance and Treasurer for those last five years when the Labor Party racked up $69 billion in government debt. The Labor Party managed to take government debt from four per cent to 20 per cent of GDP. By the end of the 1998-99 financial year we will have repaid $31 billion of the debt that was accumulated by the Labor Party.It is irrelevant to say that we have a low debt level by international standards. The importance of the government debt is the interest that we spend servicing it. By spending interest on that government debt, you are taking away from future generations to pay for current generations. It is like an intergenerational Concorde scheme. If we reduce government debt, that means that we can have lower taxes or spend more in areas like health and social security. We can do that just by not paying the interest on that debt year after year.It might interest members to know that since the Howard government was elected we have created 280,000 new jobs. That is a pretty good standard by any government's measure. Those 280,000 jobs have been created since the election of this government. Australia has now also recorded the lowest inflation since 1962-63. We have the lowest mortgage rates since 1970. That is good news for anyone purchasing a home at present. For the first time in a long time, we are actually starting to see competition in small business lending, so that the margins in small business lending are reducing and people who have small business loans are getting some of the benefit of the competition and also some of the benefit of the lower prime rates that are around.Regarding national savings, the state and local government sector is moving into surplus while the Commonwealth government has moved from the $10½ billion budget deficit that we inherited from Labor to a $2.7 billion surplus. That means that for the first time since 1990 the Commonwealth government is contributing to national savings. We all know that there is a problem with national savings, which actually reached their lowest point under the Labor government. The Labor Party contributed directly to reducing those levels of national savings.The current account deficit was mentioned. It is projected that the current account deficit will increase to about 5¼ per cent of GDP. As the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) correctly noted, this is a very different widening of the current account deficit to that which we saw in 1986 and 1989. In 1986 and 1989, when the current account blew out, it was largely a problem of the domestic economy roaring away and there were a lot of structural problems with the economy. This time around, the domestic economy is growing strongly, but not at the sort of gang buster rates that forced them to hike interest rates to 18 or 19 per cent. It is largely due to external circumstances that the current account deficit is going to widen. It is not a banana republic current account problem; it is more due to the fact that exports will decrease a bit when the full impact of the Asian economic crisis becomes evident. However, the good side is that the domestic economy is still growing well. There is still good demand in retail, housing and so on.Regarding specific measures in the budget, the budget has committed $280 million to the staying at home package, giving incentives for the elderly to remain independent in their own homes. Another very important initiative—which I wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) about and lobbied for on behalf of veterans in my electorate—has been extending the gold card to all World War II veterans, who are all over 70. The government was responding to a good campaign of letter writing which was run by the veterans. This government listened to what they had to say and now all veterans of World War II will receive a gold card.We have also eased the income test for over 220,000 self-funded retirees so that they will be able to get cheaper pharmaceuticals. That is very important, because one of the common complaints we often hear is that people who are self-funded retirees, who are just above the income test for receiving some of the benefits, feel that there is no incentive for them to save. Having an income test, while it is important, can actually act as a disincentive to save. By easing the income test, we have said, `We will recognise the past savings that self-funded retirees have made.'As I said, when Labor left office government debt was standing at 20 per cent of GDP; it was standing at about $96 billion dollars. With prudent financial management by this government, it will reduce to 10 per cent of GDP by the end of the century and should be down to 1½ per cent of GDP by 2001-02. The important thing is not just the debt per se; it is the interest we pay year after year which actually reduces the amount of services for which any government can pay.The previous speaker touched on the issue of tax reform. By the year 2000, you will have to be on only 1.2 times the average weekly earnings to actually be in the top marginal tax rate. This is the Labor Party's tax system. We have a tax system where most of the burden falls on average income earners. In 1954 you had to be earning 19 times the average weekly earnings to be in the top marginal tax rate, now you have to be on only 1½ times the average weekly earnings.We have a wholesale sales tax system that was brought in during 1930 as a response to the Great Depression. The differential rate was brought in by Artie Fadden in this House in 1940 as a response to World War II—and it was a temporary measure—whereby they would tax differentially luxury items which were not seen as being necessities during World War II. Now we have a system where the luxury level of wholesale sales tax falls on items like watches, radios, televisions and video recorders. There probably would not be much difference between Labor electorates and Liberal electorates or those on high incomes or low incomes who would have those items. I think they are items that most people would have, yet they are considered luxury items.We have a general rate, for example, on cars. Most families would have a car, and the car is taxed at 22 per cent. That is a very important issue in my electorate. In its One Nation package, the Labor Party reduced the level of wholesale sales tax to 15 per cent. A cynic might say that they did that to make it equal with the level that we had in Fightback back in 1993 to remove the attractiveness of cheaper cars for people. Sure enough, just as in the 1993 budget when the Labor Party increased the wholesale sales tax levels on everything from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent, they waited a year or two and increased the wholesale sales tax on cars from 15 per cent to 22 per cent—that is, what it is now. Wholesale sales tax is a hidden system which cascades so that people, if they have multiple inputs at multiple levels, are paying tax on tax on tax. We need a tax system that will give people incentives to work, to save, to invest and to export. We think that we can improve the current tax system. We definitely think that there are some improvements to be made.In the area of health, the five-year agreements that have been signed by the ACT and Queensland so far, which will commence on 1 July this year, offer the states a 14.9 per cent increase in real funding over the next five years. That is very important, because the Commonwealth government actually provides about half the funding for the public hospitals. We are giving the NHMRC an ongoing level of funding of $165 million. In a very important public health measure, we are also providing an annual influenza vaccine for all Australians over the age of 65. That is very important, because the NHMRC has recommended that we have an annual flu vaccine. It will save lives. It is only a modest measure; it is only about $20 million dollars. Surveys have shown that about 60 per cent of people over the age of 65 think their good health will be enough to get them through an influenza epidemic. But I can say that the problem with getting influenza when you are over 65 is that it can lead to pneumonia and death, especially for those people who are in chronic care facilities and nursing homes. This is a budget measure that will actually save lives.We have also announced that there will be 220 Medicare easy claim offices for outer metropolitan areas and areas where the Medicare offices have closed because people were not using them, they were going directly by mail or through their general practitioner. I hope I will be able to get in my electorate some Medicare easy claim offices which will operate in pharmacies and which people can use as their Medicare office.We are restoring full indexation for general practice in attendance in the Medicare benefits schedule. We have not had full index ation since 1993. That will increase the gross income of the average GP to between $3,300 and $5,000. It is a commitment to bulk-billing. Labor was the great defender of bulk-billing. Bulk-billing is actually higher now, in 1998, than it was in 1996 when we first came to office.There are a number of other initiatives, such as the national Asian languages and studies in Australian schools, which I support, and the youth ambassadors for development which is a very exciting initiative that will allow 500 young Australians under the age of 30 the opportunity to live and work in the Asia-Pacific. We hope that Australian companies will support this initiative and allow their staff time off to participate in it. This budget continues the sound economic management by this government which has led to lower interest rates, lower inflation and has, for the first time since 1990, increased national saving.20:59:003624Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Tonight I want to focus on the environment and the budget. In doing so, I think it will also give us an opportunity to reflect on some larger issues that ought to concern this parliament: the importance of how governments address an integrated planning structure for long-term environmental management in this country. At the very least, I think we should start by indicating that the Howard coalition government in their recent budget delivered their third blow to the environment since their election. The coalition have not stopped betraying the very people who took them at their word during the last campaign. We can recall their policy launch for Saving our natural heritage . In the coalition's environment policy speech in February 1996, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said:All the funding commitments in this document are additional to Labor's budgeted funding for the environment and the sustainable agriculture elements of the Primary Industry portfolio such as the National Landcare Program.But the reality has not matched those words. In the first budget, John Howard slashed 13 per cent from the environment budget; in the 1997 budget, a further 13.5 per cent was sliced off; and by this budget at least $88 million has been cut from the core funding for the environment.I think even the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) now acknowledges that the pledge made in 1996 has been defiled. Some of these cuts were replaced by funds from the Natural Heritage Trust. The Natural Heritage Trust was supposed to represent the biggest financial commitment to environmental action by any federal government in Australia's history. The ironclad guarantee provided was that those funds would be on top of existing expenditure. We in the Labor Party did not believe that the coalition had a genuine commitment to the environment, and the dividend from the sale of Telstra has proved to be, as we warned it would be, a slush fund for the Liberal and National parties.The Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, has the hide to say in this year's statement Investing in our natural heritage: the Commonwealth's environment expenditure 1997-98 that in its last three years in office the Labor government outlaid $556 million on its environment programs. In fact, the accurate figure was $565 million. But the minister boasts that in his three years in office the coalition has outlaid $740 million. What he did not say was that, if you take away what the government has hived off from core funding on the environment and robbed the Natural Heritage Trust to replace it with, the coalition will have spent only $477 million on environment programs. In other words, core environmental expenditure has been reduced by $88 million on an annual basis.The Natural Heritage Trust has an effective life of five years, after which only a relatively small amount of interest in a residual sum will be available to the two trustee ministers to spend. Bearing that in mind, at this rate of slashing of about $30 million a year—not to mention the programs from the environment portfolio or programs that have been cut in the primary industries portfolio such as Landcare and the requirement to meet those reductions from the Natural Heritage Trust—those programs related to the environment, across government, will have been savaged by about $150 million per annum. That will mean that a future Labor government will be left to fill a shameful black hole of $150 million in requirements for core environmental funding. That is nothing short of raiding future generations' environmental bank accounts.We have looked at this year's budget and identified elements of cuts. The total cuts to the workings of the Department of the Environment, just in its administration, are $13.1 million. This includes core funding to world heritage, which was cut by $5.5 million; funding to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for management was cut by $3.1 million; $4.06 million in cuts to the Australian Heritage Commission; and small cuts to the Bureau of Meteorology and the Antarctic Division, but some of the fees from those associated services were going to rise.If we were able to say that the coalition were providing a program that was sustained and ongoing for environmental management and that they had a plan behind their expenditures, then I think the Australian community would be somewhat more sympathetic. But it is plain that, instead of the Natural Heritage Trust being used in a focused way with measurable targets and quantifiable outputs, the fund has been used to plug up holes in a whole range of different directions. For example, in my own state of Tasmania it has been used to supplement required funding to make good the regional forest agreements; it has been used to substitute for funding for the Cape York land use agreement; it has been used to support a taxation arrangement rebate instead of being applied in the way in which it was first intended. That is not to say that many of these programs are not of value, but when those ordinary core expenditures of government have been substituted by funding coming from the trust and the trust diminished by that amount, then there is a long-term problem being established.If we look at some of the other areas where trust expenditure has been applied, it is plain that not only has there been a distortion of funding across the board—I think it has been identified that $9 out of every $10 were applied to coalition held seats—but there is a problem of ineligible activities. The Natural Heritage Trust guidelines, which have been published, indicated that funding was not to be provided for projects which replaced the individual's or organisation's responsibility for the sustainable management of soil, land, water or vegetation resources under their control to provide subsidies for commercial activities or for projects which have a production focus without being linked to conservation of the natural resource base. Given that, why is Natural Heritage Trust funding being provided for the future profit programs of the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the Cattlemen's Union? Why is Natural Heritage Trust funding going to the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and the United Graziers Association when the ineligibility guidelines also state that funding is not to be provided for the provision of expert advice where this advice is available through coordinators and facilitators or as a core government business?Natural Heritage Trust funding is not intended to substitute for property management planning, but we do have industry specific property management programs being funded from the Natural Heritage Trust. Other ineligible activities that are being funded include the purchase of land and general group running costs, all of which were not intended to be funded. Instead of being a fund which could have been used to build upon the sustainable development base that the Labor government had been building for a decade, the Natural Heritage Trust has become a hodgepodge program, unrelated to auditable outcomes, without any consistency or without the ability to address in a significant way the reasons which underlie its creation. That, of course, is a disaster for Australia because you do not get the opportunity to redress this large expenditure if it is unwisely expended. Once expended, if it has not met the targets which were set for it, it will be difficult to find the resources to enable an Australian government to properly meet those tasks.It is not as if pressures on our environment are being reduced. There is a very good report published from the OECD on Australia's environmental performance which correctly notes that:Pressures on the environment and natural resources from agriculture, manufacturing, the energy sector, transport and mining continue to grow, constituting a major challenge for Australia.One of the things that the report focuses upon is the need to integrate economic planning with environmental concerns. What the report points to is that the pressure on our environment is going to continue to increase. It indicates that Australia's gross domestic product has increased by 35 per cent over the past 10 years and our population by 14 per cent. It mentions that though some decoupling of environmental pressures and economic growth is taking place, it is a weak decoupling, with environmental pressures growing more slowly than GDP rather than decreasing. It says that the rate and structure of Australia's economic growth do not suggest any relief to the environment from economic pressures in the foreseeable future. The answer to that, it says, is to integrate environmental concerns in economic decisions.We are a very long way from doing that effectively. One of the real problems that I see with this government is that the lip-service given to the environment is not carried through in any sustainable way. It seems to believe, having provided the Natural Heritage Trust, that it has disposed of its obligations to the environment. Even if the government was not involved in rorting the Natural Heritage Trust, even if the government was to have expended it wisely, you could not significantly address the problems which Australia faces without taking structural steps to build into the way we do our business a proper integration of environmental and economic planning.At the moment, we do not collect a proper range of statistics on environmental baselines. We have not developed quantitative targets and timetables to further the implementation of the national strategy for ecologically sustainable development. We need to build the resource capacity in the Department of the Environment to make greater use of economic analysis in designing environmental policies at both state and territory levels. As the OECD says:By and large, the role of economic analysis in environmental policy making often appears to be of secondary consideration, and greater weight is given to institutional responses. To aid in understanding of the environmental impact of different development options or packages of policy responses, appropriate analytical tools (e.g. sectoral, regional or national economic models) should be developed and systematically used.This is my main criticism of the way this government does its business. It has not developed any systematic approach to integrating environmental baseline economic thinking into its business. It continually sees the problems that it confronts as being difficulties rather than challenges. I think the greatest example of that is in the area of greenhouse where the report points out that there must be greater development of programs and objectives to improve Australia's response to the challenge of global climate change.We seem to have a government that sees all the challenges on the environmental side as fast rising balls delivered outside the off stump. They seem to have a Boycott approach: if you leave the ball alone or block it, then you will not get out. They do not see the opportunity for Australia to score the runs. They do not see the chances that we have as a nation to take the lead in some of these fields and actually develop initiatives which would put Australia at the forefront.If we do not give the lead at a national level and have an integrated environmental and economic strategy, then we will not deal adequately with water resources, salinity or land degradation. We will not have a response to global climate change, we will not have a capacity to let Australian industry develop new opportunities that exist globally in trading in emissions and we will not have an opportunity to set Australia up as energy efficient and competitive.These are major challenges which we must meet. This government has to get out of its defensive frame of mind. It should avoid patting itself on the back on the basis that it has made one substantial spending commitment—which it has debauched—and then say that that is sufficient. It is not sufficient. We must go back to a framework where we integrate environmental thinking across portfolios and do not treat it as an optional extra.21:15:003627Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I have been listening to the opposition members speaking in this debate as it has been developing and one of the things that they have not come to terms with is that we are back in the black, back on track. In 1996, the Australian people were asked to place their faith in the coalition—they were tired of 13 years of Labor running the country to ruin, they were tired of broken promises, they were tired of increasing taxes, they were tired of increasing deficits and they were tired of increasing debt. The Australian people asked the coalition to come in and fix the problems that were growing: we were asked to fix the debt, we were asked to fix the overrunning of budgets, we were asked to fix the poor money management and we were asked to give some hope for the future. True to our word, the coalition has returned financial responsibility back to the community within our first three years in government. We are now back in the black, back on track.I add one rider: we have much more to do and it is not time to rest on our laurels. Nor is it time to hand our administration back to the Labor Party, which has proved over many years in many governments, both state and federal, that they cannot handle money, they cannot handle the Treasury. We cannot put the Labor Party back in charge of Treasury for a long, long time because, under the Labor Party, Australia suffered the worst recession in 60 years. Under Labor, interest went up nearly 3 per cent between August and December 1994, mortgage interest rates went up to 17 per cent, mortgage repayments of the people of Cowan increased by nearly 50 per cent, 27 per cent of median family income was needed to meet monthly mortgage repayments and one million Australians lost their jobs, with unemployment peaking at 11.2 per cent. Wholesale sales tax increased, petrol excise increased, tobacco excise increased, and FBT, Medicare, motor vehicle and company tax were all increased when in fact the Labor Party said there would be no increases under their administration. In the 13 years of Labor governments, Labor was responsible for 10 deficits—averaging $12.2 billion.The people of Cowan have worked hard to establish themselves. They do not want to see their hard earned money being wasted through the Labor Party's tax system which we currently have. Recently I surveyed the Cowan electorate and asked them whether they wanted tax reform. The overwhelming response was, yes, they do. They do want tax reform. They want the coalition to reform the tax system. Unlike the Labor Party, which wants its own system to remain—and they have got their spokespeople out there saying that they do not want to change—the people of Cowan have said the current Labor tax system is unfair and needs reform. I assure the people of Cowan that I have been working for them to ensure they have a fair tax system—fair to them, fair to their families, fair to those in the community who need our help and fair to all Australians.Who could ever forget the Labor Party's promise during the 1993 election of not increasing taxes? I certainly cannot and the people of Cowan probably will not either. Labor promised not to increase taxes, but they did the exact opposite. They said they would not increase taxes on flavoured milk, on fruit juice, on nappies, on cosmetics, but when they got back in, in their first budget, they increased taxes on many of the products which the families of Cowan would use on a daily basis. When it comes to tax, the Labor Party cannot be believed. When it comes to tax, the Labor Party breaks its promises—as we have learned. When it comes to families, particularly Cowan families, the Labor Party has a history of not caring.The Cowan community wanted me to represent them in government on issues which affected their children and the Howard government has responded. The Howard government has developed a national drugs strategy. The government now has in place a `be tough on drugs' program within our schools, directing funds to help educate our kids on positive drug outcomes.But it does not stop there. The Howard government has a new approach to young Australians. When Labor forgot about our younger generation, the coalition did not. Our attitude is one of providing hope and opportunity for their futures. In Australia we now have more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. We now have more kids in training than when the Labor Party was in government. We now have opportunities for our young. In Cowan we are seeing evidence of these programs providing a future and hope for the next generation.The Howard government has also focused on improving education. The Howard government is spending more money on education than was ever spent under Labor. The electors of Cowan wanted us to treat education as a priority, and we listened. Education is our priority: we have focused on literacy and numeracy, we have invested more into our teachers and we are bringing enterprise into the school system to help our kids take a vital role in their community.The Cowan electorate asked me to focus on the environment and represent them in this place on that issue. They wanted me to treat the environment as a priority, and I have. The Howard government has proven its desire to improve environmental policy within Australia. The coalition has increased spending on environmental issues by 37 per cent more than the Labor Party spent when they were in power. We have focused on reducing greenhouse gases; this year is the first year of our strategy, and we will in fact do that.The people of Cowan are concerned about health and want to have a system which is accessible and fair to all Australians. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party's spokesperson in Cowan wants to see the private health system come to a close. He was quoted recently on radio as saying he does not support the privatisation of health. This means he does not support the redevelopment of the Hollywood Hospital, a veterans hospital in Perth. As a veteran and Vice President of the RSL, it is strange for him to criticise the privatisation of the veterans hospital, which by all accounts is the benchmark for other hospitals to follow.The Labor spokesperson is also publicly quoted as wanting to have the hospital system returned to what it was like when he was young. When he was young, there was no Medicare, so what he is saying is he does not want Medicare in the current political environment—which is confusing because he does not want privatisation of health, but he does not want Medicare.So where does the Labor spokesperson in Cowan stand on health issues? Does he support the current system or not? Does he support private health or not? Perhaps the faceless men of the Labor Party who put him there in the first place should get him to toe the party line. The Labor Party in Cowan dropped in a party man to represent them rather than have a woman as had happened for many years. In fact, there was a big brawl last year about the women of Cowan when the men of the Labor Party overtook the women and put their man in. This spokesperson for them says one thing and means another. He is just like the Labor Party: how could we ever believe them again?The Howard government made a promise to the people of Cowan that would ensure that Medicare remained in its entirety. And I am pleased to advise the people of Cowan that I have been working for them, and we now have a health system which has Medicare maintained in its entirety, as promised. But the Howard government have even gone further. Rather than attack those who want the choice of private health—as the Labor spokesperson in Cowan has done—the Howard government provides rewards and incentives to those who take out private health cover. More families now benefit through the health programs put in place by the Howard government.The electors of Cowan asked me to work with them to help older Australians—and I have. The government now provides increased support to our World War II veterans, with the introduction of the gold card. Self-funded retirees are now eligible for the health card. We now spend more than the Labor Party ever even thought about on aged care, with a total of $4 billion dollars now being spent.The Labor Party are a party of the past. They have no ideas. They have spokespeople from the past. The Labor Party have limited ideas. They are a tax and spend party. The Labor Party take no responsibility for driving the Cowan taxpayers to their knees. The Labor Party do not care about the people of Cowan. They would rather scare than care. They peddle in untruths and distortions. The Labor Party say one thing and do another.On the other hand, the people of Cowan want someone who stands up for them and works for their needs. They want representation rather than party politics. The people of Cowan want someone who has a record of getting things done. They want someone who is working for them. They sincerely want someone who is working for the seat of Cowan. Since I have had the privilege of representing Cowan since 1993—it is named after a great Australian—I have been working for the people of Cowan on issues like crime, the environment and education. I have been working for them on family issues, on issues affecting their children, on issues affecting the community.I give them this commitment. Whilst I am your member in Canberra, whilst I stand up for your issues, I will always be working for you. There is much more to do, and I can assure the people of Cowan that I will be vigorously fighting for their interests over the next period.21:26:003629Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I always have a bit of a laugh when I come into this place and hear those on the other side say that the Labor Party in government made commitments about increases in taxes, that we broke promises and the taxes went up. They themselves know that their leader, the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Howard), made a commitment that in the first three years of his government there would be no new taxes and no increases in existing taxes, and yet in the areas on which I have the great privilege to act as shadow minister on the Labor Party side the whole landscape is simply littered with broken promises on that fundamental issue.One only has to go to the tourism industry to see the 400 per cent increase in the reef tax. One only has to look at the increase in the departure tax that was put in the budget of two weeks ago as part of the appropriation bills that we are debating now. The minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), sits there with a wry smile on his face, because he knows that I am going to also mention the $50 visa fee for tourists coming to this country from those countries where there are no electronic visa issuing facilities.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—High risk posts.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—`High risk posts', the minister says. It is a funny thing about this government. Back when the Asian crisis first impacted on the Australian tourist industry and the industry was calling for support rather than the cuts that were instituted in the previous two budgets of this government, the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) and the Prime Minister were saying, `Oh, this is nothing. The Australian Tourism Commission can simply switch markets and try to encourage tourists from other areas.' Surprise, surprise. What happened was that the minister actually went to some of these so-called high risk areas that the minister for immigration now talks about and spoke up about the benefits of people coming to Australia from these so-called high risk areas such as India and China so that people in this country could benefit from those tourists through an increase in jobs.But we saw the Chinese government decide to give a favoured nation destination status to this country. As a consequence of that, suddenly this minister for immigration says, `All those tourists coming to this country are high risk category people, so we will charge them 50 bucks for the privilege. We will give $50 million extra to the Australian Tourism Commission over four years to promote Australia in destinations like China but, by the way, we are going to say to those Chinese—whom we want to come here for tourism purposes—that it is going to cost them an extra 50 bucks they had not counted on to get here through the visa and it is going to cost an extra three bucks to leave as well, because the departure tax has gone up by $3.' The minister has dressed it up as some kind of border control check and the need to find money for that.When you go to the budget papers—as I know the minister clearly has done—you find the following figures. You find that there is going to be an extra $50 million—well, it is really an extra $41 million for promotion of tourist opportunities over the coming four years, because $9 million is for enhanced opportunities surrounding the Olympics, so that will disappear in a couple of years. But through the visa fee increase, which was zero before, incidentally, and has now gone to $50—not a bad jump, but there will be no increases in taxes under this government, of course, because that was the promise of the Prime Minister—and through the increase in the departure tax, are they going to make the $50 million that will cover the cost of the added advertising for the Australian Tourism Commission? Well, they are; they are going to do it five times over, because the budget papers indicate that they are actually going to make $242 million. It is not a bad little earner for the government to make $242 million out of the tourism industry—the milch cow of this government—and yet spend only $50 million extra.The fact is that, because of the value of the Australian dollar at the present minute, that $50 million for advertising Australia as a tourist destination diminishes—if applied in the United States or in Europe or in some of these Asian areas—simply because of the way the dollar is falling as a consequence of the economic policies of this government.When those opposite repeatedly voice a claim that the Labor Party always made promises about taxation reform, we can simply say to them, `Remember your Prime Minister: no increases in existing taxes and no new taxes?' As I said, in terms of the Australia tourist industry, tax increases have already been imposed on it with the reef charge, the visa charge, the departure tax and the diesel fuel excise—the list goes on and on. Then there is the other major issue, which is the GST. We have not yet seen what all that is about. But I can tell you that, in the tourism and sporting industries in this country, it is going to be devastating. Is it any wonder that tourism representatives are seeking, as a minimum, zero rating for tourism in this country? Is it any wonder that representatives of sporting organisations— those athletes, coaches, administrators and people who run sports organisations—are saying, `We do not want this GST because it is going to turn us into tax collectors for this government'?If they should happen to be community sports organisations running the local footy or netball team and they run a canteen, then they are going to be turned into tax collectors for John Howard. They will have to keep the invoices for the pies, chips and lollies they sell, in case the GST police arrive and knock on the door. They will have a look at the cash register or the way in which sales are being recorded in that little operation and if they do not match up—well, guess what—I am sure there are going to be plenty of hefty penalties there. Have they ever had to do this before? We are talking about volunteers, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are talking about ordinary men and women who want to see their kids play netball or football or with a hockey stick in their hand. What are they doing now? They are having to be tax collectors.I went over to New Zealand last year to have a look at the way the system works there. Do you know what the scarcest commodity in New Zealand is? It is people wanting to be treasurers in a voluntary capacity of any sporting organisation. Why? Because they know that, at the end of the day, they could be liable when the GST police come knocking on their door saying, `Show us your records.' If you have not got them, you are in big trouble.These people on the other side laugh most of these things off. They say, `This is simply not going to happen.' I can tell you that it is going to happen. Do you know what the increase for sports funding was in the budget papers this year? The grand total of $2,000—2,000 miserable dollars for sport in this country. It becomes worse if you look into the future—at the four-year estimates. You will see that once the Olympics are finished, the allocation proposed for sport in this nation drops to $31 million—to run all of those athlete programs that the Institute of Sport runs, all of the administration that the Australian Sports Commission has responsibility for. Is it any wonder that the Confederation of Australian Sport has condemned this?Is it any wonder that people in the sporting community around this country think that the present minister is an absolute joke? It is no wonder. This is the minister who trots along to meetings of sporting organisations and says, `I am sick of going to budget committees and arguing for more money for sport on the basis of emotion. What you have got to do is go out and get more sponsorship for yourself.' You tell that to some community based sporting organisation already faced with the prospect of having a GST imposed on them where there is no tax on them at the present moment. There will be a charge to go in to watch the game, a charge for uniforms for the players, and a 10 per cent GST levy on top of the pies and chips you buy at the canteen. There will be 10 per cent on top of all the other elements associated with the running of that particular community based club. Then you say to them, `Oh, by the way, there should not be any government support for sport in this country. You should go and get it all from the local pub or club or get some other organisation to sponsor you.'The simple fact is that if you cannot get on television these days, if you are not an Olympic sport in this country, then you are doing it pretty tough to get a sponsor. Yes, there are some well-meaning and good individuals at the local level—like the local butcher or the local pub who are prepared to throw a few dollars towards a local sporting team—but it should not be the be-all and end-all of support as this minister would have it.I thought I would be able to say what tremendous things were in this budget for small business, but I came up with a blank piece of paper. I thought, `There has got to be something in here,' so I went to the Business Review Weekly of 18 May of this year. It is a whole issue with a cover saying `39 per cent', `How a 10 per cent GST would affect your business' and `Why paperwork could double'. I thought, `That sounds like something we have been saying about the effect a GST might have on small business.' And wasn't there that promise that John Howard, the patron saint of small business, made to the small business community during the last election campaign that the burden of paperwork would be reduced by 50 per cent in their first term of government? Isn't that a familiar sounding promise that was made? Has it happened? No, it has not.If a GST comes along, will that increase paperwork? We reckon it will, but the government would say, `You are the Labor Party. You are the opposition. You would be running around saying all that.' Well, I have got to tell you, we are not the only ones—because in this particular issue of the BRW there is a cover story on tax reform which makes very interesting reading. You can read the article that says `Small business warned on costs'. You can also read the story that says `"Two-book" operators risk being caught', and the way the GST will operate for small business.There is another featured piece by Amanda Gome, who writes the small business section of this publication, entitled `Costello wins no friends'. This is her comment on the budget and small business and it says that the budget pickings for the nation's biggest employer sector are slim, almost non-existent. Yet we had the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in here this afternoon saying what fabulous things there were in this budget for small business. What a load of rubbish!I understand why the minister does not know. He has been out there trying to mug the MUA; he has been out there trying to wreck the trade union movement of this country, so he has not had a lot of time to pay attention to the small business sector. From his point of view, it is a secondary part of his ministerial responsibilities. But he better start paying attention to the small business sector because, quite frankly, a GST is poison for small business.A GST for small business means an incredible blow-out in paperwork burden. Compliance costs would go through the roof. An estimated $7,000 worth of equipment update would be required by every small business. Given that some 50 per cent of small businesses in this country today are micro businesses—businesses that do not employ anybody or that are just one- or two-person operations working from home—the cost for that is going to be substantial. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said this afternoon, `GST equals inflation equals higher interest rates.' All the reputable economists will tell you that, despite all this crowing that has been going on about how interest rates are low for small business now, with a GST interest rates will not stay low. There is so much that could be said about the lack of foresight in this budget. There is so much that could be said about sport, tourism, small business, the economy generally and the assumptions upon which this budget has been forecast not only for the present but also into the future. I find it quite surprising that here we have the Treasurer (Mr Costello) who, with a smirk on his face after delivering this budget, patted himself on the back and said, `Isn't it wonderful? We have a surplus.' I simply remind him that there have been five budget surpluses in the last 50 years in this country, four of them delivered by the Labor Party. He has a long way to go yet.There is one issue of great significance which regrettably was not contained in those budget papers, and that is an initiative to try to help the unemployed in this country. Coming from Wollongong in the Illawarra region, as I do, and according to the ABS, the unemployment rate under this government has regrettably blown out to around 15 per cent in the Wollongong statistical district. It is an absolute tragedy that this government believes it can continue to consign those people to the scrapbook of history.Yet there is an option. There is one particular project that is being championed in the Illawarra and which I would hope this government lend its support to—I have spoken on it in this place before and I wish to speak on it briefly again tonight—that is, the very fast train proposal that has been advanced by the Transrapid Consortium and that involves the latest and greatest technology, the Maglev technology. This proposal has the support of the local community. Two prominent small business people in the Illawarra, Michael Bolt and Michael Corban, have championed its cause with the support of the local media, particularly the editorial staff of the Illawarra Mercury. Petitions have been circulated throughout Wollongong and the Illawarra.Why are we so excited about this? We are excited because the train journey from Sydney to Wollongong will take 22 minutes. It is a train journey that is to be effectively developed between Sydney and Canberra, but of the four proposals which are to be considered by the Commonwealth, state and ACT governments it is the only one that goes through the Illawarra.We are desperate for this project. This would open up outstanding opportunities not only for people commuting to Sydney but also in the use of local materials in the production of this particular proposal. Local businessmen and the local community that have got behind this project deserve our support. I commend it to the government for serious consideration. I look forward to the support of people like the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), because it is intended that this project will go through his electorate as well.21:42:003633Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—I want to start off my speech on the budget by congratulating the government, and particularly the Treasurer (Mr Costello), for bringing down a landmark budget. When we took over only two years ago, in March 1996, we found that there was a $10.3 billion budget deficit, despite being told that the budget was in surplus. We made a promise that by this year we would have turned that deficit into a $1.6 billion surplus. We have done better than that; we have turned it into a $2.7 billion surplus, which is a $13 billion turnaround in three budgets or two years—a truly remarkable feat!When we took over in 1996 there were some very disturbing figures in the budget papers. The total Commonwealth government debt was at the level of $96 billion. There are lots of debts and deficits, and the public has difficulty in understanding them—there is a budget debt, there is an overseas debt, there is a current account debt and so on. But the one that we have direct responsibility for, the Commonwealth government debt—it was zero when Captain Cook sailed into the country— had blown out to $96 billion in 1996, of which $80 billion had been racked up in only the last five years. I point out that in the latter years of the former Labor government, the present Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, was the then finance minister.But, even worse than this, we found there was no plan in place to stabilise this debt, let alone to have any thought of paying it off in the future. Everyone forgets that we have to pay interest on this debt. The debt had blown out to 20 per cent of GDP. By next year we will have paid $31 billion of that off and we will have reduced the debt to 10 per cent of GDP. With the plans we have in place, we will further reduce it to 1½ per cent of GDP by the financial year 2001-02. Even next year alone, with the payment of $31 billion, that will be a saving in interest to Commonwealth revenue of in excess of $2,000 million a year—money that we can put into other projects. We have had this remarkable turnaround in such a short time in the face of a number of difficulties. Firstly, we have had Labor opposition in the Senate to just about everything we proposed to get the accounts in order. They voted against every measure we put up designed to either cut out waste or reorganise spending more efficiently. Now that we have achieved this figure, they have said, `Oh, well, we'll run surpluses ourselves from here on in.' What an absolute joke.The other difficulty we have overcome in achieving this $13 billion turnaround is that we have done it in the face of the Asian situation. If we had not done this, what a terrible pickle we would be in today. We would have the IMF lobbying in Sydney telling us what to do. When the Labor Party ran up this incredible debt, they were doing it at the time of eight per cent to 10 per cent growth rates in Asia. Those sorts of percentages have evaporated today. They were the easy days. We are doing this in the hard days, so to speak, but it is very important. Almost two-thirds of our exports go into Asia. Nine out of the top 12 destinations for our exports are in Asia. So we are truly doing the hard yards, as the Treasurer said. On top of that, the other factor that we must not lose sight of is that we have pulled back this deficit without increasing tax. In the last three years, for each of those three years, we have had no increase in personal income tax, we have had no increase in company tax, we have had no increase in sales tax and we have had no increase in fuel tax. The Labor Party put up most of those taxes, if not all of them, almost on a regular basis with each budget that they brought down. The fuel tax alone rose from 6c a litre when we handed over government to them back in 1993 to 36c a litre when they were thrown out of government in 1996. We have not had one increase in fuel tax in three budgets. In fact, in the last 12 months, we never even had an increase in fuel tax due to indexation. That is the first time that has ever happened since records were kept. So our track record is quite superb in that regard. In fact, we are even reducing taxes in some areas. If I may just be parochial and mention one, we are bringing the excise on avgas down by 15.6c a litre. Those that follow the excise on the avgas debate may remember that we stopped avgas increases under the previous government by blocking them in the Senate. We are bringing them down. The en route service charge, which is 2.6c a litre, comes off this week. Another 13c a litre, which is the air services charge, comes off at the end of this financial year.The situation in place is that piston driven aircraft which use avgas, which are mainly the smaller planes flying around country areas, were paying for services that they never use. They were paying for services where you are supposed to have air traffic control towers. They, to a large extent, are not in country areas. There is not one in my electorate, for example. It was costing country air services $17 million a year to pay these taxes, cross-subsidising city consumers. We are taking those off. If you have, say, a Cessna 206 mustering stock for four hours, that will save $35 alone. As is the case in my electorate, a crop sprayer who has four planes using 200,000 litres of avgas fuel a year will save $31,200 in a year. We are not only not increasing taxes but also bringing them down in some areas. I might also add that, despite these stringencies that we have had to bring in in the budget, we have still been able to pump more into education, more into health, more into local government, more into child care, more into veterans' affairs, more into pensions, generous provisions for self-funded retirees and so on. But, at the end of the day, we have ended up with a sound economy. The inflation in Australia today is the lowest it has been for over 30 years. The interest rates today are the lowest they have been in this country for over 30 years also.Under the previous government, business interest rate benchmark levels touched 25 per cent. Even when we took over in 1996, they were at 11 per cent. Today those business rates are down to 7.7 per cent. That has delivered more benefits to business than any other measure we have taken. Housing interest rates, which were up at about 17 per cent at their peak, were 10.5 per cent in March 1996 and today are 6.5 per cent. That is a reduction of four per cent. On an average $100,000 loan, that is $4,000 a year, $80 a week or $320 a month of, if you like, tax-free money. That is a magnificent contribution to battlers out there trying to pay off their houses. Unemployment, which is the great tragedy of this country, averaged 8.7 per cent over the 13 years of the previous government and today is 7.9 per cent and trending downwards. Those figures will bounce around of course, but they are now trending downwards.I have already spoken about debt. The stance we have taken on this is that, instead of spending money today to entice voters of today which will be paid off by the next generation, we have said that we have to pay off that debt. We have to remove the next generation from having to pay off this debt so that they can have a future life with opportunities before them without being saddled with deficits. There are many exciting measures in the budget. Perhaps the single most exciting one was extending the Commonwealth seniors health card to an extra 220,000 people by lifting the income test for single people from $21,000 to $40,000 and for couples from about $36,000 to $67,000. That means that instead of paying $20 for a script they will only have to pay $3.20 for a script and they get them all free after the first 52 scripts. It has already been announced that the gold card will be extended to another 50,000 veterans, worth $508 million over four years, which will give them all the range of private hospital patient care and so on.Regional Australia will have another $3.5 billion spent on it and $3.2 billion of that is for coalition programs, such as the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, the Federation Fund, the Natural Heritage Trust, the AAA package, the Supermarket to Asia program, the roads of national importance program, the black spots program and so on. All in all, it is a magnificent budget, brought back into surplus. Even though some stringencies have had to be put in place over the last couple of years, we have still found that we can keep spending programs in place and even throw money towards the battlers, increasing spending over and above what it was in 1996. My congratulations to the Treasurer.21:55:003635Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—It is interesting that I can observe from my new vantage point the budget debate with a degree of objectivity—and with some amusement, I ought to say. Someone from the government gets up and says, `We are doing this and you did this.' The opposition says, `No, we did not.' The government says, `Yes, you did.' And so it goes on back and forth.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—You did it pretty well yourself, John.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Exactly right. The minister for immigration is right. I did. Government members have all these dot points of all the good things they have been told to say about the government. Obviously the Labor Party have dot points that say exactly the opposite. So members come in here and trot out what they are told. I suppose that is the way the system works.I would like to start by congratulating the Treasurer (Mr Costello). I think it has been received as a good budget largely because it was a good budget. In that sense, credit is given in the critical area of the public arena when credit is due. The points have been quite correctly made that the budget is in the black for the first time in a decade. I believe that the budget strategy is the correct one and the appropriate one for these times. I believe it is important for the government to get debt down, and the government obviously has a commitment to do that.We need to have a strong economy to withstand the financial instability which is occurring in Asia. I think the fact that we have an economy as strong as ours has so far allowed us to withstand that instability. I suspect that if the government had not taken some of the tough decisions that it took, particularly in 1996, and which caused a lot of anxiety then we would have felt the affect of the Asian downturn much more deeply as an economy than we have.The government is forecasting a growth rate of three per cent for the year. I think that is a little optimistic. I noticed a former Leader of the Opposition Dr John Hewson also saying so. I always agreed with him, and I suspect that he might be right on this occasion when he says that the government may not have factored in the full impact of the downturn in Asia. The government may have been a little optimistic about the impact of the downturn in Asia and particularly the way that the Japanese economy is performing.I would like to applaud in particular the extension of the seniors health card to self-funded retirees. I should say that I have a large number of self-funded retirees in my Gold Coast electorate. Five years ago nobody in this place knew what a self-funded retiree was, and I take some credit for putting their concerns well and truly on the agenda. I was pleased that the government took steps to recognise the fact that they exist and has progressively extended benefits to them that are appropriate because, as we have said often in this place, the low income self-funded retirees are a category of people who actually turn out to be almost the poorest in our society, not being entitled by virtue of the assets and income test for a pension, yet often not being as well off as pensioners. This group of people, having done the right thing all their lives—that is, saving for their retirement—often find as something of an irony that they end up being worse off than they would otherwise have been.Certainly giving the seniors health card to a very large number of self-funded retirees is welcome in my electorate and also the extension of the gold card to a large number of World War II veterans is a welcome budget initiative. I would like to say a little more about the gold card in a moment, but I need to make the obvious point, I suppose, that the government had a fair bit of ground to make up with senior citizens after the nursing home debacle which impacted so heavily on many electorates such as mine and where the government, I suppose to put it fairly frankly, was a little on the nose. Obviously that has been recognised.I actually thought the budget was extremely restrained in its language. I can only assume, as have others, that the lead-up to the election will be the time when some further initiatives in relation to the tax package are actually taken. Of course we will all await with interest to see what those are. The tax debate is obviously now in full flight. I was rather interested to hear the entry of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) into the debate on what sounds awfully like an income splitting sort of initiative to assist families. I must say on the face of it that what he had to say had some attraction. I am not sure it is an alternative proposition to the GST, but I am certainly willing to look very closely at anything which will benefit families with children. That of course was what he proposed, in effect.I believe the biggest failing in the budget is still health. I can only assume that the government is yet to come to grips with this. For a long time I have believed that the government was, for a lot of reasons, unwilling to take some of the hard decisions that were necessary to actually fix the health situation. Obviously some difficult decisions have to be taken if we are to restore the viability of private health insurance. I have long believed that the tax deductibility of private health fund contributions, as expensive as it might be, would be obviously one way to go. The AMA, I noticed, has corresponded with all members recently with some further suggestions about how things can be improved, but unfortunately I think the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) is having a full-scale war with the AMA and may not give that particular submission the attention I believe it actually deserves.The biggest disappointment in the budget is the treatment of tourism. As a representative of a tourism area, I was interested to hear the earlier remarks made by the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin). He is absolutely right. He has got a very easy target in respect of tourism because, frankly, I and the tourism industry right across the board are disappointed with its treatment in the budget. I heard the member for Cunningham have a shot at the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) and I really have to agree with what he said. Whilst we recognise that the Australian Tourist Commission has been given additional funding of around $50 million over four years—about $10 million a year—at the same time as the government has given, the government has taken away. As it turns out, the government has actually taken away about four times what it has given the tourism portfolio.Despite all of the attempts to obfuscate or confuse that issue, the figures are clearly obvious for everybody because the industry is being slugged on two fronts. The one the member for Cunningham mentioned quite clearly is the $50 visa charge which will raise $160 million over four years. There is no doubt in my mind that this will seriously impact on the price competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination. We want to encourage tourists to come to Australia, not discourage them. The minister for immigration made the point that this fee is necessary and is aimed at those high risk countries, high risk in the sense that the people who visit from there are at high risk of overstaying. But the point is that these so-called high risk countries are also serious tourist markets for us and they are also high growth markets.I believe we ought to be a visa free country for those who want to come here on holidays. I know the minister will say, `We virtually are,' or something to that effect. The point is I do not think many people in the government understand the tourism industry. The minister probably only has about two tourists a year in his electorate, whereas I have two million. The government needs to understand that it is a very price sensitive market and anything that is put in the way of a tourist coming to Australia will be negative. Requiring people to go through the process of getting a visa is bad enough, but now we are going to require quite a large number of them to pay $50 for the privilege of coming to Australia and then $30 when they leave, because that is the other nice little imposition in this budget.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—All other developed countries had visa charges greater than ours.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I am sorry, Minister, but I am not really in a position to discuss it with you in this way.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—Well, that is the case.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for McPherson will ignore the minister.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I am trying but he is very difficult to ignore. I was saying that the other part of the double whammy on the tourism industry is the passenger service charge, or the departure tax as it used to be called before we did not increase taxes. The Treasurer started his budget speech by saying that there was not going to be any increase in taxes. That may be true because we are talking about a passenger movement fee and not a tax but, whichever way you look at it, it is going to cost you $3 more each time you leave this country. These people who will have to pay $50 for a visa will also have to pay $30 when they leave, so that is $80 they will end up paying for the privilege of coming to Australia. Clearly, they will vote with their feet, their wings or whatever and go to Hawaii or some other place. Why would they do otherwise?What members do not understand if they do not represent a tourist electorate is how price sensitive the tourist market is and we need to be very careful about that. Ironically, the Treasurer said in his budget speech:We recognise the importance of tourism for the Australian economy.I say: really? We understand how important the tourism industry is as an employer. At the moment, the Asian turndown is having a very serious effect, particularly on the Gold Coast where I am obviously monitoring the situation carefully. We are seeing significant drops in the number of Korean, Indonesian, Thai and Malaysian visitors. It is very serious. The Korean market has almost collapsed completely. Also, in percentage terms, we are seeing a fairly significant drop in the Japanese market, which is very important to us. The end result of this is that all of the tourist operators are expecting to downsize so there will be job losses, and the government makes it even more difficult for tourism with these additional imposts.So I am disappointed at the treatment of tourism. The government, of which I was a member, pays lip-service to the importance of tourism. The former government did the same. When it comes to the crunch, as the member for Cunningham said, tourism is seen as some sort of a milch cow, but it is not. It is a very important industry to the Australian economy. It is a very big employer and, unfortunately, in this particular case, more has been taken away than has been given.I wish to talk very briefly about one or two other things in the limited time I have left. Firstly, on the issue of veterans affairs, I need again to say, honestly, that I am concerned about a number of aspects of the veterans affairs budget. Pre-budget speculation was that this budget would treat veterans harshly and, unfortunately, that appears to be true. There has been a fairly substantial drop in the appropriation to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is hard to get a handle on exactly how much it is but, from reading the raw figures, it looks to be, as I said, a fairly substantial drop. It seems to me that there is not much sympathy for veterans in the ERC. There are cuts to the overall budget and substantial cuts to some services to veterans.I asked a question in question time today of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) about the recently released morbidity study. That study showed that there were considerable impacts on the health of Vietnam veterans. Worse than that, there was an impact on their wives, their families and, in particular, their children. Whilst the minister gave me some general assurances about the government's commitment to addressing those issues seriously, it seems that the budget has not done that. The so-called Vietnam Veterans Initiative 98—which, it was believed, was a package of measures in anticipation of the validation of the results of the morbidity study—was not included in the budget, so I was rather disappointed about that.I will just note a couple of other matters that are of concern to veterans in this context. Whilst veterans welcome the extension of the gold card to a very large number of World War II veterans with qualifying service and over 70 years of age, and recognising the cost of almost half a billion dollars that was involved in that, I was disappointed up to a point with the way the announcement was made. I think there was an expectation in the veterans community that all World War II veterans were going to get the gold card. When the fine print came to light, that was not the case. There are a large number of World War II veterans who are not entitled to the gold card by virtue of the fact that they do not have the qualifying service.I do not necessarily want to value people's services in different ways, but the fact is that a very large number of World War II veterans volunteered for service and, through no fault of their own, were not posted outside of Australia or to an area where they could have had qualifying service, as they might have had for a very short time in Townsville or Darwin. They gave up some years of their lives, they are aged, but they do not get the gold card. They are very much treated and have always been regarded, I suppose unfairly in many respects, as second-class veterans. By the same token, there may have been some veterans who served in theatres of active service but who saw no active service at all. I cast no aspersions on them whatsoever, but I do want to go into bat for that very large number of World War II veterans who do not get the gold card.I also want to mention the Korean veterans. There are quite a large number of Korean veterans who are over 70 years of age and who were on active service but who will not get the gold card, and I believe they have a case for it. There may even be some Vietnam veterans now over 70 years of age who would be in the same position.The other matter that I constantly raised with the previous government and raise with this government, without any really positive response, is the treatment of the disability pension by the Department of Social Security. Again, there is a class of veterans here who are treated very poorly. Because they do not have a service pension, their disability pension is actually treated as income by the Department of Social Security and they lose the benefit of that disability pension. The current minister promised a review of this when the coalition was elected, but the review is still going on. Despite many letters to the minister, I have been unable to find out when the review will be completed.There is also concern in the veterans community about a reduction in legal aid availability. I know this is an issue of concern to all veterans. Government members will be aware of it, and I hope that they are speaking up on it. It is a serious assault on the rights of veterans. They have a right to go through a process, and now some serious restrictions have been placed on their right to legal aid if their appeal ends up at a point where they can take it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I say, this is a matter that needs to be looked at, and I appeal to the government members present—all of whom I see in the House I am sure are strong supporters of veterans—to really press this need.Finally, the Vietnam end of war list still has some serious concerns for veterans. I honestly cannot yet see that the government got this right. Members will be aware of the concern that there has been, in my view, improper recognition of the gallantry of some veterans. There is the problem with the inability of the government to award the Military Medal, so officers who are recommended for that level of gallantry are getting the Military Cross whereas officers in other ranks with the same level of gallantry are getting pieces of paper. That is something that I feel so strongly about and I believe the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) ought to step in and correct that situation. Indeed, there are residual concerns about that end of war list that badly need to be corrected.It is not enough to say that we will not forget the service of our veterans. It has to be demonstrated. It is no good our standing up here in this place particularly around Anzac Day, as all members do, or saying when we go out into our electorates, how much we value the service of veterans. The fact is that we have to ensure that we do represent their interests in this place. I will do that. I have done that over the last eight years, and I will continue to do it here to the very best of my ability.22:12:003639Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The third budget of the Howard coalition government was a landmark event because it finally saw the end of the high debt period, the high debt legacy, which the Labor Party left us. It was a budget which, quite simply, followed the sort of practice that all sensible people would try to follow—that is, live within your means. Everything that was announced in the budget only a few weeks ago is paid for. There is no need to borrow any money to meet the obligations announced in the budget, which is certainly something that the last half dozen or so Labor budgets failed to do and, unfortunately, it was in some grand style and at great cost.There are lots of economic reasons why not having debt and repaying debt is very important, but there is one very good and very important social reason—that is, our children. There is no doubt in my mind that the budget, in itself, was the delivery of a very pro-youth, pro-young person, pro-generations to come policy by this government. The reduction of debt will mean that the children of today, as they become the adults of tomorrow, and their own children and grandchildren will not be left with a legacy of repaying what we have spent today or, more to the point, what the previous government clocked up in the form of $96 billion over the last five years of the Labor governments. It grew from $16 billion to $96 billion in just five years. That was the sort of level of government debt we had. Based on the performance to date, this government will deliver on its commitment to continue to work hard to repay the Labor Party's debt and, in four years time, based on the return of the Howard coalition government—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. The Deputy Speaker would be exceedingly grateful to the member for Paterson if he would observe standing order 57 and do his colleague the courtesy of not passing between him and the chair.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—In just four years time the government's net debt will be repaid to a point where it will be less than $10 billion. The ride will continue for another couple of years and then a $10 billion net debt will be all that will be left of the Labor Party legacy of $96 billion. That is incredibly good news for my children and for the children of all members present.The surplus of $2.7 billion in the 1998-99 budget brings the budget back into the black for the first time in almost a decade. In fact, we are now repaying government debt which grew in those last Labor years to the point where the share of debt was more than $5,000 for every Australian. By the end of this budget we will have repaid $31 billion of that $96 billion debt, which is the equivalent of reducing the debt by $1,660 for each and every Australian.On top of that, this government has produced the sort of stability and economic climate in which people can plan with some certainty. Housing loan interest rates have reduced from the 17 per cent high of 1989 under Labor to just 6.7 per cent—the lowest since 1970. Small business interest rates peaked at 20.5 per cent in 1989 under Labor and now they are 7.7 per cent—the lowest since the 1960s. Inflation under Labor averaged 5.7 per cent and it is now less than zero at minus 0.2 per cent—the lowest since the 1960s.In this place we are all concerned about unemployment: that peaked at 11.2 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was the employment minister and it is now down to 7.9 per cent—the lowest in eight years. It is certainly good news to know that more Australians are back in the work force and working hard to improve their lot and the lot of their families. The government has done all this with a background of no increases in tax rates, company tax, wholesale sales tax or petrol tax. In fact, the 7.5 per cent tax cut on the first $3,000 of saving income comes into effect on 1 July this year, and the provisional tax uplift factor has been further reduced to five per cent under this government.The seniors health card has been expanded to cover an additional 20,000 self-funded retirees. This is tremendous news for many people in my electorate—especially people like Gwen Whitehead and Doris Cochran whom I rang on budget night. Gwen said to me, `I didn't watch the budget because there's never any good news in it for self-funded retirees. What happened?' I told her, and I could hear her getting teary over the phone. She was very emotional when she found out that finally a government was in place in Canberra that was bothering to do something about self-funded retirees getting the decency and the equity that comes from access to the seniors health card.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Hear, hear! What a good member you are.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Thank you very much, Parliamentary Secretary. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, many on this side of the chamber in the coalition have represented very strongly the views of their self-funded retiree constituents on the need to bring about this equity. It is extraordinary to me that there is no flow-on effect from that equity in my electorate. For example, the Brisbane City Council does not offer any rate rebates to anybody who is a self-funded retiree.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What! It must be the only place in Australia.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It could well be. At the end of the day, if a pension recipient is on one side of a neighbours' fence and a self-funded retiree is on the other side, under the Labor administration at city hall the one on a pension gets a rate rebate and the self-funded retiree gets nothing. I think that is an out-and-out disgrace. The time has come for Lord Mayor Soorley to realise that there is a very large group in the community which has worked very hard and deserves some reward for effort in the form of a rate rebate. I will certainly be pushing that point.We have also helped people on age pensions and people who are war widows. For the first time they are served by a government that is prepared to legislate that pensions be tied to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Howard coalition government delivered that. This resulted in an increase of $6.80 a fortnight back in March. As well as that, the gold card has been extended to World War II veterans with qualifying service, those over 70, so an additional 50,000 World War II veterans will get access to the gold card from January. It will cost half a billion dollars over four years, but I do not think you could ask for a better spend on half a billion dollars.Some wonderful equity measures are contained within this budget. The staying at home package—another $280 million over four years—shows that this government has listened to older Australians who want to stay in their homes, who do not want to be without the support services, the incentives, the assistance that they need to stay in their homes. They want the dignity that comes from that. For a lot of reasons this country is well served by the government. There is a lot more to be done but, as a nation, the last thing we need is to return to the high debt, high spend approach of those opposite who are already racking up a series of great promises with no detail on how they are going to fund them. They are already catering to special interest groups who have all sorts of agendas that they would like to have supported by the Labor Party. If they are returned to the treasury bench we will have another government of high inflation, high unemployment and high interest rates.This government is cracking down on social security fraud. Some $28 million a week is now being saved simply by enforcing existing laws, and that is something that those opposite never bothered to do.In my electorate of Moreton, a lot of people are saying to me that the constant carping and criticism from those opposite is wearing thin. Opposition for opposition's sake is just not good enough from those who were once the government of Australia and who pretend that they would like to be the government again. In no area other than the taxation reform debate that is currently under way in this country do we see such a perfect example of how opposition for opposition's sake is the mantra constantly chanted by those opposite.Opposition for opposition's sake produces a very anti-worker tax policy. Those opposite stand for a continuation of a tax policy in which average weekly earners are paying just about the top rate of tax. They believe that there is no need to change a system where average weekly earners continue to pay at or near the top rate of tax. That system discourages those who want to work harder, those who want to work longer or those who might want to seek a second job. Those are the sorts of things which have been the basis of making this country great.To think that those opposite want to hold on to a ramshackle tax system which in itself is inherently unfair to the average worker, which means that people on social security face high tax rates, complexity and unfairness and which really does produce the worst possible result for those relying on the social security system. As low income families or part pensioners earn more money, they quickly lose the benefits. This discourages them from working more. With additional income subject to tax and the withdrawal of benefits, some families and part pensioners actually lose money by earning more as a result of the taxation system that those opposite keep wanting to defend. But, even outside these cases, there are many families who see very little return from working harder and upgrading their jobs. We all know that most of the benefits of those who want to try to earn a little more continue to disappear in the tax and social security systems. These systems need to be simplified so that families and other welfare recipients are better able to understand and benefit from the system overall.Mr Deputy Speaker, I could delay the House for a long time, but of course that would not be allowed under standing orders, and go down the list of indirect taxes that people do not realise they are paying on a constant basis. For those sorts of reasons, we have an outdated system. We have a wholesale sales tax system which is totally illogical and pinned on World War II measures. It penalises those who buy electrical items such as televisions, which were luxuries during wartime but which are standard equipment these days, making them pay 32 per cent sales tax. In the 1990s and heading into the year 2000 and beyond, those items which might have been seen as luxuries during the Great Depression and the Second World War are now obviously everyday commodities, the standard things that we need.To think that we have such an unfair, complex and outdated tax system constantly being defended by those opposite, something which delivers the worst possible result to low income earners, especially those who see those sorts of items as something to acquire to provide them with some joy that they may not be able to afford in other ways, is an absolute disgrace and betrayal.I think that the budget measures announced on 12 May are a good precursor for the advances that will come as a nation, that we will gain as we continue to repay debt and as we continue to establish the stability of a low inflation low interest rate regime where people can plan for their futures with some certainty. The only ingredient missing now is the reform of our ramshackle tax system.I call on those opposite to get inside the tent; do not be on the outside. Get inside the tent, be part of the debate and be constructive and not just oppose for opposition's sake. I know that that is probably going to fall on very deaf ears, but it is a plea that I think all on this side genuinely will continue to make. We do want constructive input from the Labor Party opposition, from the Democrats, from the Greens and even from our friends the Independents. If we have that constructive contribution to taxation reform, if we stop the scare campaigns even before they start, we will get somewhere positive.I turn very quickly to the Courier-Mail editorial of 18 May where it reflected upon the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that, regardless of the outcome of the next election and regardless of whether or not the people of Australia vote for taxation reform, he will oppose it. The article made the point that Mr Beazley and his colleagues should understand that it makes a mockery of their principled positions based on the 1975 constitutional crisis caused by the Senate not passing certain bills that we often hear them talk about. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Dr Lawrence) adjourned.Adjournment364210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 10.27 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.364222:27:003642Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—During the budget week, the coalition government gagged in this House the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, in spite of the fact that there were still some 12 opposition members who wished to speak on these two important bills.By this move, the government has shown a complete contempt for this parliament by not allowing this important and far-reaching piece of legislation to be fully debated. It matters not if there were no more government MPs interested in speaking. In a democracy we on this side have also been elected to speak on issues, and we are regularly and repeatedly gagged by the Leader of the House (Mr Reith). As the Bills Digest made clear, these bills:were introduced within 24 hours of Patrick Operations Pty Ltd (Patrick Operations) terminating the labour supply agreements with four Patrick employer companies which employed 1,400 members of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).As recognised by the Federal and High Courts, the latter action was itself facilitated by the restructuring of the Patrick group of companies that occurred without the knowledge of the MUA and its members in or about September 1997.The September 1997 restructure of the Patrick group saw the four Patrick employer companies, which had till then been trading profitably, sell all their assets. . . Through a series of assets sales and share buy-backs, the four labour hire companies were left with limited operating funds and only one asset. That asset was labour supply agreements with Patrick Operations.Patrick subsequently terminated these agreements and terminated the employment of the MUA members, and so the lock-out began. Of course, the government considers our waterfront to be inefficient, but there are contradictory views on this issue. When comparing Australia's waterfront performance with overseas ports, we must keep in mind a number of factors. The productivity of Australia's ports is restricted by low transhipment rates, small cargo volumes, the type of vessel servicing Australian ports, infrastructure problems and poor management practices. We need to also note the unfair comparison with other countries that have modern, first-class equipment while much of the equipment in Australia is in dire need of updating. How on earth can we expect Australian workers to match the performance of anyone with outdated and inefficient equipment? We know that where our workers have good equipment they perform not as well as others but much better than others. However, nobody is arguing that we should not be striving to improve the efficiency of all Australian industries and services whether that be the waterfront, legal profession, transport, agriculture or law enforcement.But are we saying that if we find an inefficient section, say, of the legal profession that may have been entrenched for years we sack all the judges and QCs who work in that section of industry? Are we saying that if there is some inefficiency, say, in a particular bus depot we sack all the bus drivers and maintenance workers in that depot? That is exactly what this government is saying with the introduction of this legislation to try to booster its unbelievably bad track record on this waterfront issue. While as individuals we may from time to time be inconvenienced by such inefficiencies, it would be wrong to present a one-sided case, as indeed this government is intent on doing in this parliament on the waterfront dispute.One could be forgiven for believing that the reason that this government is paying so much attention to this particular industry is that the workers are protected by a strong trade union. The bill raises a levy on stevedoring operations to fund redundancies in a particular section of the industry—Patrick's. The bill allegedly ensures that it is the industry and not the taxpayer which pays for the redundancy arrangements. But, as we all know, all costs are eventually passed on to the public, so it is clear that the taxpayer will pick up this cost in the longer run.But has the industry as a whole been consulted on these new arrangements? I think not. If these redundancy arrangements were to be accepted as part of Australia's industrial relations practices, there are a number of scenarios that might emerge. If a government and employer wanted to get rid of a unionised work force in a particular company, say, in the metal industry or building industry, would it be correct to say that they could introduce, for example, the `Metal Industry Levy Collection Bill 1998' or the `Building Industry Levy Collection Bill 1998'? Would they be prepared to levy all companies in these industries to ensure that the industry, and not the taxpayer, funded such redundancies? I believe the answer is likely to be a very firm and decisive no. You can see that industrial relations under this government is moving into fantasy land.364322:32:003643Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Few people would deny the importance of tourism to the Australian economy. It is the largest single export earner, bringing $16 billion a year into the country, and it is expected to double in the next decade. Domestic and inbound tourism contribute around $52 billion a year to GDP. Tourism directly accounts for some 600,000 jobs and indirectly many more. At the local level, its contribution is greatly appreciated, especially in communities such as mine where there is no heavy manufacturing industry. The Blue Mountains is one of tourism's key destinations. It is the eighth most visited site by international tourists and is the first-visited natural feature for most. But, further, tourism is the lifeblood of the Blue Mountains economy.The latest figures show that there are 541,000 annual overnight visitors to the Blue Mountains from domestic tourism alone. This adds up to 1.3 million visitor nights a year in the Blue Mountains, bringing in $96 million a year to the Blue Mountains economy. On top of this, over a million international visitors are recorded at the Blue Mountains each year, with each daytripper spending an estimated $41 per day.Tourism provides 1,860 direct jobs in the Blue Mountains and nearly 4,750 jobs in more than 680 businesses which provide services directly to visitors to the Blue Mountains. My constituents defend jealously the Blue Mountains and the tourism industry in the Blue Mountains. As you would understand, Mr Speaker, my residents would be aghast at comments in the Illawarra Mercury last week on Wednesday, 20 May. These are the comments:Wollongong and the Illawarra are blessed in that they have a much greater diversity of natural and built features than the Blue Mountains will ever have . . . Once you have seen the Three Sisters and had afternoon tea at the Hydro Majestic Medlow Bath, there is not a lot else you can do in the mountains.These comments were not those of a local tourist operator totally preoccupied with his own business. They were not comments from someone who cannot be expected to know better. They were, appallingly, the comments by the opposition spokesman for tourism, the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin).These are outrageous comments. They are totally lacking in any understanding of one of the premier tourist destinations in this country. They are totally ignorant of the hard work of the hundreds of small tourism and hospitality businesses in the Blue Mountains, and they are totally unsympathetic to the thousands of jobs so dependent on tourism in the Mountains. It is unbelievable that a shadow minister could be so far off the track with his comments. Such ignorant and irresponsible statements are an indictment of Labor's front bench. If that is what the Labor Party think of the Blue Mountains, they deserve to be in opposition forever.Let me put the member for Cunningham straight. We have much, much more than he suggested. Yes, we do have breathtaking scenery typified in the Three Sisters and a myriad other equally stunning sites throughout the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury area. But we have much more. We have an exhaustive range of outdoor activities—bushwalking that is the envy of the world, superb golf courses, picturesque gardens and picnic areas, fascinating heritage attractions and historical sites, exquisite world-class restaurants and cafes, endless galleries and antique collections, a range of enthralling cultural and entertainment activities, and quality and affordable accommodation.The member for Cunningham could not be more wrong. He is wrong to suggest spending only half a day in the mountains. The Blue Mountains has more than you could experience in a lifetime. The latest edition of the Blue Mountains Holiday Book 1998-99 says it all. This is a book that I intend to distribute to every member in this place to convince them of the beauty and the appeal of the Blue Mountains. As the inside page says `Experience the Blue Mountains'—not for half a day, not for a day, but for a holiday experience of a lifetime.364422:37:003644Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—Recent events in the coalmining and maritime industries have drawn attention to the issue of scab labour in industrial disputes. Scabs are people who betray their fellow workers. They sabotage industrial action which is taken by organised workers to improve their circumstances, consolidate their gains or protect their wages and conditions. Scabs are thieves who try to improve their own position by stealing from other workers. They steal their jobs and their incomes and, in the process, seek to feed their own families with food they steal from the tables of others.Recently, I heard a scab ask whether his grandchildren would be proud to know that their grandfather helped to reform the waterfront. I say to that worker and to others like him that they will wear the foul stench of scabbing in their souls forever. Their children and grandchildren will smell the stench and recoil from it. Instead of honouring him, his grandchildren will lower their faces in shame when they know that he sought to improve his own circumstances by destroying the hopes and the lives of others.I ask the scabs: when your employer pats you on the back, hands you an award and tells you how principled and courageous you are, do you really believe him? Do you look to see whether any honourable workers are standing beside you? Do you realise that you have become a foot-soldier to help destroy your work mates? When you have served your purpose, your employer will discard you. He will throw you aside like a stinking rag.Scabs should be reminded that the young Tom Edwards was shot and killed on the Fremantle dock in 1917 when the wharfies were protesting against the scabs who were stealing their jobs; that Alan Whittaker, who survived the bullets of the Turks at Gallipoli and of the Germans in Western Europe, could not survive the bullets of the police of General Blamey when he was shot in the back of the neck and killed while protesting about scabs on the Melbourne docks in 1928; and that the young Norman Brown was shot and killed by the police at Rothbury in 1929 when he was protesting with others about scab labour in the coal mines.To those who say those events were long ago, I say that we have recently seen the vile images of balaclava hooded thugs in black suits with their rottweilers, alsatians and mace sprays, as well as the darkened buses with the shrouded windows smuggling scabs on to the wharves and the mine sites. They are foul, vile, gut-wrenching images that despoil our humanity. Do these images make the scabs feel proud? Do their wives and kids recoil in horror and race to the bathroom?The American author Jack London was a prolific writer early this century. His magnificent political novel The Iron Heel outlined the transition from capitalism to fascism. For most of his life, he remained an ardent unionist. Jack London is credited with the following description of a scab:After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad and the vampire he had some awful substance left with which he made a SCAB. A SCAB is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a waterlogged brain, and a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts he carries a tumour of rotten principles.When a SCAB comes down the street men turn their backs and Angels weep in Heaven, and the Devil shuts the gates of Hell to keep him out. No man has a right to SCAB as long as there is a pool of water deep enough to drown his body in, or rope long enough to hang his carcass with.Judas Iscariot was a gentleman compared with a SCAB. For betraying his Master, he had character enough to hang himself. A SCAB hasn't.Esau sold his birthright for a mess of potage. Judas Iscariot sold his Saviour for thirty pieces of silver, Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British Army. The modern SCAB sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children, and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer, trust or corporation.Esau was a traitor to himself. Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God. Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country.A SCAB is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class!I have proudly joined the picket lines in numerous industrial disputes including the Vickery mine at Gunnedah, Hunter Valley No. 1 mine and the Carrington wharves in Newcastle. My body will rest peacefully because my children and grandchildren will always be able to say, `He never scabbed, he never crossed a picket line, he never betrayed his class and he always tried to serve it well.'On the picket lines, I have stood with good, decent, courageous, self-sacrificing men and women who were simply protecting their rights and their dignity. I have seen the shadowy images of the scabs inside the fences. If those scabs ever want to redeem themselves, if they want to purge their guilt and rejoin the ranks of honest and honourable workers, they must acknowledge the enormity of their offence against decency and honour. They must genuinely seek to redeem themselves. (Time expired).364522:42:003645Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—On Saturday, 23 May, I attended a birthday party in my electorate. There are quite a few birthday parties occurring in every electorate every day of course, but this one was special. The birthday had actually occurred the day before on 22 May, and it commemorated the birthday of George Holdaway, an active shopkeeper in the town of Corrigin. The important thing about this birthday was that George was born on 22 May 1898. He is 100 years old and still conducts his own business in the town of Corrigin. It is the most remarkable experience to meet him and to know him. I thought I should take this opportunity tonight to mention a few things about him.George was born at Wardering, which is between Narrogin and Wickepin. He was the second child born to Alfred and Clementine Holdaway. George was followed by 14 others. It is interesting to note that his brother Merv is 83 and now lives in Wickepin in my electorate, his brother Mick is 80 and lives in Narrogin, and his brother Joe, who is the junior—he is only in his mid-70s—lives in Geraldton in my electorate.At the age of 14, George left school to work on a farm owned by a fellow called Les Waddell. At 15, he really branched out on his own and went to Narrogin to work at the Duke of York Hotel and later at a dairy for a Mr Gibson. He was in Narrogin for 13 years, so he was no fly-by-night. When one thinks, as I will tell you, that he moved to Corrigin in 1946, one realises he has been there for a while too! He then worked in a store before he moved to Perth and went back to working in the hotel business. He moved to Corrigin in 1946 where he was working in Les Henderson's shop which was a butcher, greengrocer and carrier business.George eventually purchased the greengrocer's shop, and it is through this business that he was to endear himself to the residents of Corrigin. His store was and is more than a place to buy groceries; it is a place to meet friends, enjoy a chat and discuss likely bets on the horses with George. I did tip him while I was there. The horse happens to be my own property; it has not raced yet. I just told him to keep his eye on it and he careful ly put the information in his pocket. At 100, you can bet he will not forget.In 1964, he moved to another shop in the district, which had a residence behind. That is where George still lives. He has never married. He looks after himself; he has no-one to help him. He opens his shop at six o'clock every morning. It immediately has patronage because it is known throughout the district that, if you need that extra packet of cigarettes or something or you are feeling a bit dreadful, you can go down to George's place and he will be open. As they say, the shop is a little light on for stock, but customers can still be guaranteed of finding George's famous lolly jar near the counter.It was really something to hear those people—including Roger Nicholls, a state minister who was a boy in the town—reminiscing about the way that they could always go to George's shop. They all knew that they had to behave themselves there because George was in the habit of telling you how to behave yourself if you did not. He had a small garden with his shop so the mothers could sit down and enjoy a rest while they were shopping in town. He is highly regarded. The community got together and purchased 100 trees—and I was pleased to purchase one—which have been planted in the town to commemorate George Holdaway and all the things he has done.As I said, he never married, but he was a recognised top-class ballroom dancer who was known to turn up at dances in Albany and Narrogin and all the areas of the Great Southern throughout his career. He told us all that a few whiskies are all you need to enjoy a long life. He is quite a remarkable man. I am delighted to have the opportunity tonight to briefly record George's history. What a wonderful man he is in the town of Corrigin.364622:47:003646Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise tonight to speak about child care. I think that I am well qualified to do that given that my electorate of Chifley, of all the electorates in Australia, has the largest number of young people aged between 0 and 5. Unlike my neighbour, the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly), I do not condemn the councils for providing long day care services. In fact, I think Penrith Council has got 17 child-care centres and Blacktown has 18. I welcome their involvement and, in particular, I also welcome the private providers. In electorates like mine, we certainly need both public and private provision of child care, not one above the other.Tonight I do not really want to talk about long day care. I want to talk about before and after school care and, in particular, the kids' activity centre. The kids' activity centre is located in a house that was used originally as the first police station in Mount Druitt when the housing commission was building the suburbs of Mount Druitt. When a police station was eventually built—some 25 years ago—Jackie Deveraux commenced the kids' activity centre. It caters for some 200 children and, unlike any other child-care centre that I can think of, it opens at 5.30 a.m.—principally because working people in my electorate, whether they are men or women, often have to travel long distances to their place of work and need the security of placing their children in safety before the school opens.The government claim that in removing the operational subsidy they are paying back the parents and that it is a zero gain sum. If that were the case, I certainly would not be standing here tonight. One of the things that the government have done that I do not understand—and I would be most grateful if government members could explain this—is to impose the same rules on before and after school care as they do on long day care. If you think about it, long day care is for very small children; before and after school child care caters for children up to 15. You do not have to sign your child in if you drop them off to school, but this government is saying that not only do you have to sign them in of a morning but you have got to sign them out of an afternoon.The kids' activity centre is probably one of the more renowned child-care centres—it is internationally famous—and it has an enormous number of children—200 children. The imposition of the extra sessional record keeping now insisted on by the government is an absolute burden on the kids' activity centre. They have gone from half an administrator to two full time administrators, just so that they can sign the kids in and out and keep the records that the government requires.The coalition often says how important family values are. I would have thought that the coalition government would have wanted to remove, or eliminate as far as possible, the alternative to before and after school care, that is, latchkey children. I attended a meeting with parents and with Jackie last week. Regrettably, they are being forced into a position where they are going to have to close unless the government is prepared to negotiate with what I feel is a very important sector of the child-care industry.Where are these 200 children going to go? The centre has five buses. If the child is sick and cannot go to school, they will look after them or they will transport them to the school or to a doctor's appointment. It is very true that we could cut costs; there is not an argument that you could not cut costs, but what you cannot do is maintain the same quality of care and provide parents with the same sense of safety, security and affection that the centre offers. (Time expired)364722:52:003647Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—At the outset I point out that I respect the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), and I always have, but I draw the line at what he had to say this evening. I felt that it was ideologically driven. He referred to the Maritime Union of Australia—which, I have to say, honourable member, has never acted in the national interest. That goes as far as what they did—or, more importantly, what they did not do—in times of war and in times of national emergency.Once again, this evening I want to raise an issue not only as the member for Groom but also as the patron of a local community support group for those affected by myalgic encephalomyelitis, ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS—a potentially disabling and chronic condition affecting the immune and central nervous systems. I regret that I was not able to acknowledge this in the last sitting week when International CFS Day occurred—in fact, on budget day, May 12. It is a complex illness and the list of symptoms can be extensive and profound in the more severe cases, highlighted in the recent drugs in sport case involving the Australian Rules footballer, Alastair Lynch, which, thankfully, was settled to everybody's satisfaction earlier today.Current research suggests a dysfunction of the immune system and the central nervous system. The complexity of the illness means that the prognosis can be very difficult to predict. Some patients will make slow and gradual progress over several years to a full recovery. The majority will make variable progress with relapses which may be severe and prolonged. They may reach 70 to 80 per cent of their former functions.Others remain severely disabled with little progress, needing a lot of help with their personal needs. A smaller percentage may deteriorate and be bed bound for much of the time. Peak incidence appears to be in the 20 to 40 years age group, with a slight predominance to females. Unfortunately, cases involving young children are increasing. Clearly, it is a very real and, for many, a very debilitating illness. The consequences of living with ME-CFS for the sufferer, the carer and the whole family unit need to be understood.I take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to two Toowoomba women, Joan Sheath and Lyn Wilson, both of whom are sufferers and support group leaders, without whose persistent efforts the community group would not be what it is today.In this place in March of last year I expressed support for a working group established under the auspices of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians with the aim of developing clinical practice guidelines for the assessment and for the treatment of ME-CFS. The major task of the working group was to evaluate the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on ME-CFS and to make recommendations to medical practitioners and to the community.I regret to inform the House that patient support organisations and CFS clinical experts are critical of the results. To illustrate, I quote in part from a recent letter to me from the Toowoomba support group:It is with deep concern that we implore you to use your Parliamentary influence to reject the Draft Clinical Practice Guidelines . . . If those guidelines are accepted and imposed they are going to cause untold hardships on sufferers and their families.The questions we all want answered are, "How can these people make guidelines about the management of an illness that so little is known about?: And, "Wouldn't the money being spent on these guidelines be better spent on research into ME/CFS/FM?"They go on to indicate some of the things in the working group's management plan, but they finish by saying:We're sure it would be of great concern to the Australian Government if the Royal Australasian College of Physicians were to lose their credibility with researchers and physicians around the world.Undoubtedly, ME-CFS is a debilitating illness which we cannot and must not ignore. Seemingly, the guidelines reactivate perceptions that this is a condition of the mind rather than of the body. Clinical experts and sufferers reject that simplistic view.364822:57:003648Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—In the time available to me this evening, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the tragic decision of this government to close one of the principal Medicare offices in my electorate. I refer to the Medicare office located in the city of Salisbury. That Medicare office has been there for many years, since the establishment of the scheme back in the early days of the 1970s, and has served the people of the Salisbury district very well indeed.The government's decision to close that office will now ensure that the people in that district—a very substantial population area—will be severely disadvantaged by their inability to make cash claims at that office or to lodge claims for subsequent payment. Of course, the Medicare offices were part of a community web of support. They provided for other government payments to be made through those offices. With their office being closed—particularly one as well used as the one in the city of Salisbury—citizens in this area will find themselves denied a range of government services.But we should not have been surprised by this decision to close a Medicare office, because it is part of a consistent pattern of attack by this government on the Medicare system and on the public health system in general. We have seen substantial funds diverted from the public system, but we have also seen the difficulties which all the states, including states led by Liberal or coalition government Premiers, are having in negotiating a new Medicare agreement with this government. Clearly, as Dean Brown, the Liberal Minister for Health in South Australia, has indicated recently, the government is substantially neglecting the interests of the public health sector in failing to properly negotiate those agreements and in failing—as it has already done—to recognise the importance of public health in this country.We have a government that went to the last election and made a commitment to maintain the Medicare system, but since their election we have seen nothing but a consistent attack on that system and the closure of Medicare offices. Now we even have a Treasurer (Mr Costello) who is discussing the introduction of co-payments into the Medicare system and is saying that it is a disadvantage for bulk-billing of medical services to be available, because it effectively makes the service free to the patient, as the Treasurer has recognised. I do not see that as he see it: a negative in the system. I see it, from the perspective of one who represents a constituency with many people who are not able to afford extensive medical care, as a service which is indeed very positive and productive for those people. The attack by this government on that system, the attack which it mounted in the last budget on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and the way it has forced people to pay more for more effective medicines will come back to haunt it at the next election in the only way it can expect, as people recognise the danger of that system and the deficit it brings.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:003649House adjourned at 11 p.m.Notices3649The following notices were given:Dr Theophanous to move:That this House:(1) notes and welcomes the resignation of Mr Suharto as President of the Republic of Indonesia;(2) congratulates the students and the leaders of the democratic movements for their courageous efforts in the struggle for democratic reform in Indonesia;(3) calls on the President, Mr Habibie, to release all Indonesian political prisoners, to allow for free political activity, including the organisation and registration of new political parties and movements, and to move to new, completely free elections in Indonesia within the next twelve months; and(4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Xanana Gusmao, Leader of the East Timorese people, and for immediate negotiations to achieve autonomy for East Timor followed by a UN supervised referendum on its future.Mr Andrew to move:That the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.Documents3649The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 May 1998:Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 96, 97, 98.Census and Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Statement 1998 No. 1.Defence Act—Determination 1998 No. 20.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 92.Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 85.Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 88.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement under section 125.Migration Act—General direction under section 499 1998 No. 5.National Health Act—Determination 1998 No. PB 9.Parliament Act—Parliamentary Zone—Proposal to erect signage on and around the National Archives of Australia new headquarters at East Block.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 90.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 89.Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 15 May 1998 as the date on which Part 3.1 of the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act 1993 shall come into operation.Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 87.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. SESROB 26, SESROB 27, SESROB 28, SESROB 29, SESROB 30, SESROB 31, SESROB 32, SESROB 33, SESROB 34.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 13, 14.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 86.Superannuation Act 1976—Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 94.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 91.Superannuation Act 1990—Declarations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 93, 95.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act—Determinations Nos. SCD 98/1, SCD 98/2.Therapeutic Goods Act—Determination 1998 No. MP1.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instrument 1998 No. 4.Answers to Questions in Writing3650The following answers to questions were circulated:3650(Question No. 2508)25083650Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1997:(1) Have any (a) functions, (b) dinners, (c) gatherings, (d) receptions or (e) meetings been held in either of his official residences since 2 March 1996 with the specific purpose of raising funds for the Liberal Party of Australia; if so, will he provide details of (i) when each engagement was held and (ii) how many persons were invited to attend each engagement; if not, why not.(2) Were the costs of holding the engagements partly or wholly met by funds from (a) the Official Establishments program, (b) the running costs of his office, (c) the Guest of Government program or (d) some other source.(3) On how many occasions was the Honorary Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Ron Walker, invited to a (a) function, (b) dinner, (c) gathering, (d) reception or (e) meeting held at either of his official residences since 2 March 1996.(4) Has Mr Walker been involved in an engagement referred to in part (1) where fundraising for the Liberal Party of Australia was the objective.3650Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:At all times the use of the Official Residences for entertainment purposes has been appropriate. It has not been the practice to make public details of the people attending functions at the Official Residences.[An error occurred in the publication of Question No. 2532 (Hansard, 3 March 1998, page 290). The correct answer is as follows:]3650(Question No. 2532)25323650McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's Department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) which consultants have been engaged, (b) what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case and (c) what sum was paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister's Department for which no payment has been made.3650Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I have provided below the details for consultancies commissioned by my department for the period 1 July 1997 to 20 November 1997. Details for 1995/96 and 1996/97 are available in the "Supplementary Information to the Annual Report" for those respective financial years. Extracts have been provided to the honourable member and to the House of Representatives Table Office.ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIES AND COORDINATION(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Wizard ComputingData loading and image processing for Australian Coastal Atlas15,652Live Content Engineering and Design P/LUndertake the Australian Directory of Coastal and Marine Monitoring (ADCaMM) software application project7,500Live Content Engineering and Design P/LDevelopment of a Systems Architecture for the Australian Coastal Atlas9,500CSC Australia P/LUndertake software application project for use in the Australian Coastal Atlas4,740Sinclair Knight and MertzUpdate of Coastal Vegetation and Landforms information10,000CRC Soil and LandEnvironmental Indicators Coordinator Workshop27,489Centre for Resource and Environment StudiesSectorial Gaps Analysis of 96 State of the Environment Report2,600 Professor Richard NorgaardParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table6,850Professor T. HundloeParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table3,175Australian Irrigation Technology CentreParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table2,425Allen Consulting GroupParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table4,675CSIRO Division of Wildlife and EcologyParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table3,000Ecoservices P/LParticipate and present paper at Minister's Environmental Economics Round Table3,175Freelance Ecology (Dr Bruce Wellingon)Completion of the Biodiversity Technical Report and the biodiversity component of the CRA summary report for the Central Highlands RFA region7,600Context Pty LtdIdentification and Assessment of Community Heritage Values in Victoria North East CRA Forest Region20,000Robin Crocker and AssociatesIdentification and Assessment of National Estate Aesthetic Value in the North West CRA Forest Regions20,000Bing LucasDesktop data audit of available information on potential and known World Heritage values in Tasmania3,365Project Support ServicesScheduling services for the CRA/Regional Forest Agreements Program2,107Graham WatsonApplication of Specialised software for WA regional forest agreement6,075Environs Consulting Pty Ltd (Mr Rod Safstrom)WA regional forest agreement assessment review of disturbances on vascular flora in the South-west forest region15,580CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products (Dr Neal Bougher)WA regional forest agreement assessment review of disturbances on fungi in the South-west forest region12,000Curtin University of Technology (Professor Byron Lamont)WA regional forest agreement assessment project—review of disturbances on ecosystems processes in the South-west forest region13,500Edith Cowan University (Dr Pierre Horwitz)WA regional forest agreement assessment project—review of disturbances on aquatic invertebrates and fish in the South-west forest region8,100Curtin Consultancies (Dr Jonathon Majer)Review of Disturbances on Terrestrial Invertebrates in the SW Forest Region of WA18,750CSIRO Mathematical and Information ServicesMapping Remnant Native Vegetation in the SW Forest Region of WA Using Remotely Sensed and Related Spatial Data43,150Dr Per ChristensenConsultancy for review of key disturbances on vertebrate fauna in the south west forest region of WA14,100Ms Marilyn MorganNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Manjimup Region1,000Mr Ron CrossNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Collie Region870Mr Joseph NorthoverNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Collie Region500Mr Kelvin QuartermaineNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Bussleton Region500Mr Matthew KhanNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Bussleton Region500Mr Les EadesNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Narrogin Region1,000Mr Theo KearingNational Estate Indigenous Consultation Program—Local Community Liaison Officer—Manjimup Region1,000Dr Graham WatsonAssistance with instruction of staff in the use of the species modelling software package at Qld Dept of Natural Resources192Ms Colleen MorrisParticipation in the Expert Workshop `Identifying and Assessing values and places in NSW forests' held in Sydney on 5/6/97500Mr Phil GilmourAttendance at `Response to Disturbance Expert Flora Workshop' in Canberra on 24-25/7/971,259Mr Phil GilmourAttendance at Workshop on Method development for non-target JANIS criteria, natural national estate values on 208/97400Mr Phil GilmourAttendance at `Response to Disturbance Expert Flora Workshop', 27-28/8/971,196CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology (Michael Doherty)Attendance at `Response to Disturbance Expert Flora Workshop', 24-25/7/97 and 27-28/8/972,216 Landmark Ecological Services Pty LtdAttendance at `Response to Disturbance Expert Fauna Workshop' on 15/8/97699ANU (Andrew Claridge)Consultant attending Response to Disturbance Expert Fauna Workshop, 17/9/97700Dr Michael MahoneyParticipation in Response to Disturbance Expert Fauna Workshop, 20/8/97450Dr Michael MahoneyAttendance at `Response to Disturbance Expert Fauna Workshop', 18/9/97675ERA Computer ConsultancyConsultant facilitating `Eden Fauna Response to Disturbance Workshop, 14-20/8/973,375Freelance EcologyAssessment and protection mechanisms of national estate values in the Eden CRA region2,600Professor Byron LamontParticipation in the workshop on Population Viability Analysis for Plant Species1,572CSIRODevelop and test procedures to predict topographic position from a DEM for species modelling3,000Australian National University (Dr McMahon)Feasibility study to develop and implement a habitat supply model for fauna and flora in forested environment8,000Leaf Professional Info ConsultingDevelopment and implementation of biodiversity assessment applications16,500Luminis Pty LtdAdvice on population viability analyses in forested environments10,000Dr Mike PearsonParticipate in the World Heritage Expert Panel Meeting 14,15 and 21/10/974,000Professor Cliff OllierParticipate in the World Heritage Expert Panel Meeting 14,15 and 21/10/975,000Dr Tim FlanneryParticipate in the World Heritage Expert Panel Meeting 14,15 and 21/10/974,097Dr Brian BarlowParticipate in the World Heritage Expert Panel Meeting 14,15 and 21/10/975,000MSJ Consulting (Yodie Batzke)Facilitator for indigenous workshop3,400ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $ARTD ConsultantsEvaluation of Scheduled Waste ProgramNilAustralian Geological Survey Organisation (additional PO to be raised to total $3,900)Production of Technical Report—Olympic DamNilAustralian Institute of Marine SciencePasminco research and monitoring program3,955Australian Trade CommissionConsultancy services in relation to Environment Australia seminars in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh, October 1997NilAustralian Trade CommissionConsultancy to assist Environment Australia in undertaking a seminar and demonstration project on industrial environmental management in Bangkok, October 1997. 12,000Baird PublicationsOrganisation of Workshop, Townsville 1998 (funds sources for APEC AUSAID funding)2,000Bureau of Research SciencesProduction of Technical Report—Olympic Dam1,300Bureau of Resource SciencesCommissioned Paper on "Standing Biomass carbon density & growth rate of trees in relation to the compilation of NGGI"2,000Consortium comprising Consil Associates Pty Ltd, PPK Environment and Infrastructure Pty. Ltd., Ecowise Environmental Ltd and Environmental Management Australia Pty Ltd.Consultancy to develop and implement an environment management system in a textile company in Bangkok to demonstrate Australian environment management capabilityNilConsortium comprising Consil Associates Pty Ltd, PPK Environment and Infrastructure Pty Ltd, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and Greenspan Technology Pty LtdConsultancy to develop and implement waste management strategies in four factories in Vietnam, two in the Hanoi region and two in Ho Chi Minh City to demonstrate Australian environment management capability.NilCRC for Freshwater EcologyExpanding of National Water Quality Monitoring System guidelinesNilCSIRO Division of Atmospheric ResearchCommissioned Paper on "Biomass burning in relation to the compilation of NGGI"2,000CSIRO Division of Atmospheric ResearchWritten text for Brochure and Booklet "Grappling with Greenhouse"10,000 CSIRO Division of Land & WaterCommissioned Paper on "Soil carbon in relation to the compilation of NGGI"2,000CSIRO Division of Marine ResearchAttendance at technical committee—dredging of Gladstone Harbour2,409CSIRO Division of Plant IndustryIndustry Development—Carbon content of vegetation and soils in selected areas6,200CSIRO Division of Plant IndustryExtension of Industry Development—Carbon content of vegetation and soils in selected areasNilCSIRO Division of Plant IndustryCommissioned Paper on "The CO2 fertilisation effect in relation to the compilation of NGGI"2,000CSIRO Earth Observation CentreCommissioned Paper on "Remote sensing in relation to the compilation of NGGI"2,000CyberOneInternet Publishing of InventoriesNilQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Tropical Beef CentreCommissioned Paper on "Regrowth and woody weed invasion in relation to the compilation of NGGI"NilQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Tropical Beef CentreCommissioned Paper on "Land clearing practices in relation to the compilation of NGGI"NilDr John Gordon-SmithAd-hoc support and technical advice on sea dumping issuesNilEPA VictoriaConsultancy to present papers and to lead workshops on regulatory approaches and use of economic instruments during Environment Australia Seminars in Hanoi on 2 October and Ho Chi Minh City on 7 October 1997.NilGardini and CoConsultancy for setting of fees and penalties for sea dumping activitiesNilKeith Neill & AssociatesInformation Gathering—Fourth category of scheduled wastes (Chlorinated Hydrocarbons) (Hourly rate)NilMcKibbon Software GroupModelling Projections of future Greenhouse Gas Emissions based on the g3 model series IVNilScience SpeakFoxpro database development and survey form redesign for EnviroNET Australia industry expertise databaseNilTasmanian Department of Environment and Land ManagementAssessment of National Pollutant Inventory reporting facilities in TasmaniaNilThe Australian Medical Association LimitedSponsorship of "Air Pollution and Health—The Facts" ConferenceNilUnited Transport ServicesConsultancy in relation to investigation under the Hazardous Waste Act (Brisbane, October 1997)—Transport and storage of Hazardous WasteNilPORTFOLIO MARINE(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Illawarra Regional CouncilsEngagement of a Coastcare Facilitator for the Illawarra Region of Councils26,000Break O'Day CouncilEngagement of a Coastcare Facilitator for the Break O'Day Council26,000Tasmania's West North West CouncilsEngagement of a Coastcare Facilitator for the Tasmania's West North West Councils26,000Parks and Wildlife Service—Department of Environment & Land Management—TasmaniaEngagement of a Coastcare Facilitator for the Department of Environment & Land Management (Hobart)26,000MacLean Shire CouncilEngagement of a Coastcare Facilitator for the MacLean Shire Council26,000Australian Trust for Conservation VolunteersDeliver a series of Coastcare projects in remote areas of Australia64,000The Big Picture Marketing CommunicationsExpenses associated with Coast and Clean Seas launch1,596D Smyth & C Bahrdt ConsultantsProvide advice to Environment Australia on the implementation of policy initiatives relevant to Indigenous Peoples under the Commonwealth Coastal Policy and the Coast and Clean Seas Initiative1,500Surfers Appreciating the Natural EnvironmentTraining for introduction to Internet and Homepage Design270Cape Bryon Headland ReserveInternet training and modem purchase600Stanley Peninsula Land CoastcareComputer upgrade to participate in Coastnet350Australian Marine Conservation SocietyOperation of the Marine and Coastal Community Network305,763 Smyth and Bahrdt ConsultantsDevelop a discussion paper to assist in the development of Oceans Policy14,200Natural Environment ConsultingCo-write an Ocean Policy discussion paper6,500University of Wollongong—Centre for Maritime PolicyDevelop an Ocean Policy discussion paper17,000Centre for Coastal ManagementDevelop a background paper to assist the development of the Ocean Policy10,000Science Communication ServicesMedia work on Oceans Policy2,365Science MediaDevelop a background paper on Ocean Policy5,000RecFish AustraliaAssistance in the development of the Oceans policy10,000BIODIVERSITY(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Communication Research Institute of AustraliaTo assist with design,development,drafting & artwork for 1998-99 guide to NHT.20,000Leigh CupittFacilitation of RSS PWD Exercise2,000Robert Boden & AssocExternal Assessment of NRSP Proposals1,700Wetlands InternationalFinal payment for Environment Australia's support for the Asian Wetland Bureau(Wetlands International)Oceania Program 1995-199785,000Green AdvertisingDesign, layout and printing of the Wetlands `Don't pull the plug' poster6,786Bronwyn StuckeyInitial payment of Stage 1 of the Waterwatch Education Project; development of an education resource inventory for Waterwatch Australia.1,000Dateline AustraliaResearch and preparation of eight articles with photographs for the Snapshot 97 publication.5,500Greening AustraliaFor the distribution of facilitation effort amongst the various River Murray Corridors of Green projects56,190Mr D G GillespiePrepare a report for the Biological Diversity Advisory Council `Improving the Capacity of Indigenous People to Contribute to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Australia'18,750Hassall & AssocEvaluation of the Drought Landcare Program20,000Susan BrownPrepare for the Biological Diversity Advisory Council `BIODIVERSITY A Politician's Guide'5,575Hassall & AssocProfessional fees for analysis of data on growth rates of trees in Victoria5,100Birds AustraliaGrassland Ecology Program10,500Peter StantonPrepare `Cape York Conservation and Land Management Scoping Paper'3,395CSIRO Tropical AgricultureQueensland Natural Heritage Trust Vegetation technical review performed by Dr Tony Grice1,965Roland Breckwoldt Consultancy ServicesFacilitate workshop on indigenous environmental issues related to biodiversity2,500Dr C PuttockEnhancements to Australian Plant Name IndexNilR H Walker Consulting and Professor Graham Farquhar (ANU)Undertake an evaluation of the Biodiversity Program and ABRSNilSUPERVISING SCIENTIST(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) AmountPaid $Mr Brad Larsen, World GeoscienceAerial radiometric survey of Nabarlek minesite11,220Dr Donald Baird, University of StirlingDevelopment of a sediment toxicity test for tropical conditions4,870Dr S Phinn, Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning, University of QueenslandAssessment of remote sensing for monitoring and inventorying wetland environment in Australia4,000Management Transformation AustraliaFeasibility of eriss relocation from Jabiru to Darwin8,300Scribbly Gum Publications Pty LtdProvide back up editing and writing tasks for Best Practice Environmental Management in Mining (BPEM) BookletsNilCreative Words Pty LtdProvision writing, editing, and other tasks for BPEM Booklets800Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation (AMEEF)Develop joint AMEEF/SSG directory of Environmental Management and Science for the InternetNil David EvansTechnical References Database-Update Invoice component, insert Issues list, priting function and search facility560MIM Holdings LimitedPrepare BPEM Booklet and case studies on Management of Atmospheric Emissions300CMPS&F Pty LtdPrepare BPEM booklet and case studies on Contaminated Site Clean Up3,200Killhill Pty LtdPrepare BPEM booklet and case studies on Dust Control3,495Kratzing and Brown Pty LtdProvision of Potential Authors for BPEM Booklet on Decommissioning800ANSTORadiological Periodic Surveilance Committee Frank Harris5,626Ann WebbCopy Editing, Typesetting Services SSR125 Report688UNI SEARCHProfessor Robin Fell Report 20518-8 Ranger Tailings Dam1,750MJ & GM HowesReview of the ventilation design for the Jabiluka proposal6,067ArawangPre-press production of the 1996-97 SS Annual Report4,860UNI SEARCHProfessor Robin Fell Report 20518-9 Ranger Tailings DamNilANTARCTIC(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Latitude TechnologiesRenewable energy project1,847LandinfoMapping12,541Gandy Roberts Pty LtdBuilding design and documentation6,600Integrated Consulting EngineersBuilding design and documentationNilPrice Waterhouse UrwickReview of Human Resource functionsNilResolve EngineeringTechnical and Operational AuditNilWSI ConsultingInternal Consultancy Skill WorkshopNilMETEOROLOGY(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Dr Kwabena AnamanResearch project on farmweather services10,000Mr John MottramEducation and training project in Indonesia5,800Mackie PartnersFacilitator at strategic planning conference5,760CORPORATE MANAGEMENT(a) Consultant(b) Description(c) Amount Paid $Access Programs (NSW) LtdEmployee Assistance ProgramNilPeople & Strategy Management Consulting Group and Prospect Management ConsultingSenior Officer Leadership ProgramNilKen Begg and AssociatesMedia Training of staffNilSRIBIT Pty LtdMinisterial Correspondence System data migration work2,500Australian Public StrategiesSpeech Writing Services31,694Ken Begg and AssociatesMedia Training of staff (29 participants—17 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) staff)Nil (Approx $5,400 recoverable from Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service)Coopers & LybrandReview Year 2000 PlanNilHeaney Blaylock and AssociatesCritique/edit Environment Australia/Department of the Environment letter to unions on Certified Agreement300Heaney Blaylock and AssociatesDiscuss and critique the Certified Agreement discussion paper450Price Waterhouse UrwickIdentifying business support needs and key issues for a consultancy on selection of business systems3,500(2) As at 20 November 1997 the Department had commissioned consultancy services for which an estimated $4,876,770 remained to be paid.3656(Question No. 2576)25763656Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 December 1997:(1) Has his attention been drawn to correspondence from the Australian Taxation Office in which it is alleged that Corval Pty Ltd failed to remit PAYE taxation deductions(2) How many companies or small businesses failed to remit PAYE tax deductions in 1996-97 and what total sum was involved.(3) In how many cases referred to in part (2) was legal action commenced to recover the revenue from directors or partners and what total sum was involved.(4) In how many cases referred to in part (2) were administrative penalties imposed and what total sum was involved.(5) What total sum is expected to be collected in the cases referred to in the preceding parts.(6) How many cases were concluded in the courts in 1996-97 and what total sum was involved.3656Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Commissioner of Taxation and his staff are prevented by privacy provisions from discussing with other persons the affairs of individual taxpayers.(2) In 1996-97 there were an average of 784,857 businesses registered as group employers, that withheld PAYE tax instalment deductions totalling $61,273 million. During 1996-97, there were 64,680 PAYE cases with amounts owing totalling $4,304 million referred for debt collection action and the vast majority of these cases related to 1996-97 liabilities.(3) During 1996-97, legal action was commenced to recover outstanding PAYE revenue in 20,951 cases. These cases involved a total debt of $316.4 million. Recovery action may also be taken against the directors of companies personally, for amounts such as PAYE deductions unpaid by that company. In 1996-97 Director's Penalty action was taken against 11,426 directors for amounts totalling $377.09 million.(4) Administrative penalties imposed for late payment and failing to remit PAYE by the due date totalled $159.95 million in 1996-97. (5) Collection of outstanding PAYE deductions referred for debt recovery averaged 90% in the 1996/97 year, and has increased to 92.4% in the current financial year. On this basis, collection of a minimum of $3,923 million of the total debt of $4,304 million is expected.(6) In 1996-97, where legal action for recovery was undertaken, 13,133 cases with a value of $125.52 million were finalised as a direct result. Where legal action does not achieve finalisation of the debt, other collection avenues will be employed, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Remaining cases will generally be resolved through arrangements for payment where the business is in a position to pay its liabilities over time, or insolvency action where the business is unable to meet its ongoing liabilities.3656(Question No. 2629)26293656Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2521, is Advanced English for Migrants Program (AEMP) funding earmarked for certain levels of English, such as levels 1, 2 or 3, by local providers.(2) Has his attention been drawn to instances of local AEMP training providers ceasing to offer certain levels of training.3656Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The target group for AEMP courses is generally job seekers who have a minimum English language proficiency rating of 2 on the Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating (ASLPR) scale, in all four macroskills—reading, writing, speaking and understanding. AEMP funds are not allocated by level of training. However, in proposing a schedule of courses for the calendar year, AEMP providers nominate the minimum ASLPR level requirements for each course.AEMP courses aim to either improve the ASLPR levels of job seekers or extend the vocabulary of job seekers in specific vocations or work contexts at the ASLPR 2 level.Providers also have the flexibility to include job seekers judged to have English language proficiency at a standard suitable to a particular course.(2) No, I am not aware of instances where AEMP training providers have ceased to offer certain levels of training. 3657(Question No. 2657)26573657Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Did he determine the composition of the selection committee for the work for the dole projects.(2) Was he consulted about the choice of the projects; if so, will he provide details of the consultations and discussions between himself, his office, his Department and the selection committee about the choice of projects indicating whether changes were made in the projects recommended for approval by the selection committee following discussion or contact with him or his office.3657Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I selected the members of the National Selection Advisory Committee from a list of possible appointees proposed by the Department.(2) Project submissions were assessed by the Department and then referred to the National Selection Advisory Committee. The Committee's recommendations were taken into account by the Departmental delegate when making the final decision. My involvement in the decision making process was limited to a formal request to the Department that they review any projects which involved participants working in a school or childcare environment, to avoid any situation which might place children at unacceptable risk.3657(Question No. 2709)27093657Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:(1) Has it been established whether the Greenfields Foundation, which was recently revealed as having made a loan to the federal Liberal Party, is an associated entity within the terms of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 .(2) Do the disclosure provisions of Part XX of the Act include in the definition of gifts requiring disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission any dispositions made for inadequate consideration.(3) Has it been established whether loans for inadequate consideration are considered gifts within the terms of the Act.(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the loan by the Greenfields Foundation to the Liberal Party was on commercial terms and for adequate consideration; if so, how was the information to support this conclusion obtained; if not, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure all gifts and loans for inadequate consideration made to political parties are subjected to the disclosure provisions of the Act.3657Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) The Australian Electoral Commission has no grounds upon which to conclude that The Greenfields Foundation meets the definition of an associated entity under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.(2) Yes. The definition of "gift" is given at subsection 287 (1) of the Act and includes any dispositions made for inadequate consideration.(3) Yes, loans made under terms amounting to inadequate consideration would be considered to be gifts.(4) The terms of the loan made by The Greenfields Foundation to the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party are, at this stage, unknown to the Australian Electoral Commission. The terms and arrangements of this and any other significant loans will, however, be examined by the Commission during its audits of all political parties.3657(Question No. 2744)27443657McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders. (8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.3658Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In relation to my Department:(1) (a) 4 and (b) 11.(2) Cabinet Secretariat; Executive Division; Financial Management Section; Industry and Environment Division (former Industry Policy Division); Information Systems Section; International Division; Office of Indigenous Affairs.(3) (a) Drake Overload; The Green and Green Group P/L.(b) Allstaff Australia; CPIC; CP Resourcing P/L; Hays Accountancy Personnel (formerly Accountancy Placements); Professional Careers Australia P/L; The Green and Green Group P/L; Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L.(4) Firms were selected on the basis of the ready availability of suitably qualified staff with the appropriate security clearance.(5)—(7) Not applicable. There were no formal tender processes.(8) Any commission paid is not separately identifiable. The Department paid a total of $650.00 as `release fees' for two employees.(9) (a) The amounts owed to the firms are: Allstaff Australia—$3,033.47; Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L—$1,427.58.(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$Allstaff Australia766.27CPIC3,300.00CP Resourcing P/L$9,750.00Drake Overload2,033.00Hays Accountancy Personnel31,730.50Professional Careers Australia P/L11,970.00The Green and Green Group P/L25,629.71Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L9,409.22(10) (a) $10,560.44.(b) $84,028.26.(11) Staff supplied through labour-hire firms are generally appointed to meet short-term and casual vacancies. Systematic forward projections of such requirements are not prepared. The estimates below reflect known requirements.(a) 5.(b) 1.(12) None. In respect of the agencies within the Prime Minister's portfolio:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission(1) (a) 88.(b) 54.(2) These persons were engaged in various sections and offices across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission mainly to undertake secretarial, reception and records management functions. (3) (a) Patterson Personnel; Career People; Success Personnel; Kalgoorlie Secretarial and Staff; Employee Assistance Service NT Inc.; Recall Total Information; ADECCO; Drake Personnel; The Green and Green Group P/L; The Quest Group; Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L; CP Recruitment and Management Services; ACOM Corporation; Hallis Personnel; Western Staff Services.(b) Western Staff Services; My Secretary Employment Agency; Kalgoorlie Secretarial and Staff; Creative Keyboarding; Hallis Personnel; Patterson Personnel; Drake Personnel; Career People.(4) Due to the immediate nature of the function to be performed, labour firms were contacted and the organisation that could best meet the immediate requirement was selected.(5)—(7) Not applicable. There were no formal tender processes.(8) Any commission paid is not separately identifiable.(9) (a) Nil.(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$Patterson Personnel12,366.63Career People11,307.14Success Personnel1,918.99Kalgoorlie Secretarial and Staff195.50Employment Assistance Services NT Inc.250.00Recall Total Information2,288.00ADECCO832.26Drake Personnel8,259.70The Green and Green Group P/L750.00The Quest Group500.00Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L149.63CP Recruitment and Management Services1,138.67ACOM Corporation664.00Hallis Personnel8,879.44Western Staff Services1,088.63My Secretary Employment Agency1,741.50Creative Keyboarding254.35(10) (a) $35,405.92.(b) $17,178.52.(11) The hire is dependent on the ad hoc short-term nature of the task to be undertaken. There is no set projected labour requirement for these periods.(12) None.Aboriginal Hostels Limited(1) (a) 15.(b) 6(2) The persons were employed to perform nursing services at an aged care nursing home in Alice Springs and some clerical support duties in Central Office (Canberra). (3) (a) Professional Careers Australia P/L; Nursing Agency of South Australia; Accountancy Placements; Centacom P/L.(b) Professional Careers Australia P/L; Nursing Agency of South Australia; Accountancy Placements; Centacom P/L.(4) The firms were selected on the basis of being able to offer suitably skilled persons.(5)—(7) Not applicable. There were no formal tender processes.(8) Standard, market rate commissions were paid to the firms. The commissions that applied ranged from 15% to 33% of the hourly rate for each person, and are included in the payments listed below. The estimated total commission paid on the total sum below is $30,000.(9) (a) Nil.(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$Professional Careers Australia P/L1,885.00Nursing Agency of South Australia68,617.00Accountancy Placements28,032.00Centacom Staff P/L1,338.00(10) (a) $72,453.00.(b) $27,419.00.(11) The hire is dependent on the ad hoc short-term nature of the task to be undertaken. There is no set projected labour requirement for these periods.(12) None.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)(1) (a) 4.(b) 3.(2) AIATSIS.(3) (a) Library Locums P/L; Accountancy Placements; Drake Personnel.(b) Library Locums P/L; Accountancy Placements; Drake Personnel.(4) The firms were selected on the basis of being able to offer suitably skilled persons.(5)—(7) Not applicable. There were no formal tender processes.(8) The commission paid is not separately identifiable. AIATSIS paid an hourly rate which included the employee wages, superannuation and other on costs and the firm's administration fee.(9) (a) Nil.(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$Library Locums P/L9,416.00Accountancy Placements60,000.00Drake Personnel37,366.00(10) (a) $68,693.00.(b) $38,089.00.(11) There is no set projected labour requirement for these periods.(12) None.Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)(1) (a) 34.(b) 25.(2) Financial Audit and Performance Audit Units, and the Corporate and Information Management Branches.(3) (a) Metier Personnel; ADECCO; Alectus Personnel; Professional Careers Australia P/L.(b) Metier Personnel; ADECCO; Alectus Personnel; Allstaff Australia; Select Appointments P/L; Library Locums P/L; Professional Careers Australia P/L.(4) By seeking expressions of interest by press advertisement.(5) Not applicable(6) Yes, upon request.(7) There were no formal tender processes.(8) No commission was paid. The companies charged the services of their staff by an all inclusive hourly rate.(9) (a) The amounts owed to the firms are:$ADECCO8,253.43Alectus Personnel3,588.00Select Appointments P/L5,960.70(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$Metier Personnel33,289.41ADECCO34,898.24Alectus Personnel3,379.53Professional Careers Australia P/L193,616.69Allstaff Australia1,069.63Select Appointments P/L12,836.52Library Locums P/L32,717.93(10) (a) $106,621.78.(b) $205,186.17.(11) (a) 12.(b) 35.(12) None.Commercial Development Corporation(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.Indigenous Land Corporation(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.Office of Commonwealth Ombudsman(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.Office of National Assessments(1)—(10) Nil.(11) (a) 1.(b) Nil.(12) NoneOffice of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (PSMPC)(1) (a) 25.(b) 44.(2) Executive Team; Communication and Information Team; Equity and Merit Team; Evaluation, Research and Statistics Team; Internal Support Team; Management Development Team; Public Service Employment Framework Team; Regional Client Services (North-East) Team; Regional Client Services (South-West) Team; SES Team; Strategic People Management Team.(3) (a) ADECCO; Drake Personnel; Ecco Personnel; Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L.(b) ADECCO; Drake Personnel; The Green and Green Group P/L; Hays Accountancy; Kowalski Personnel; Select Appointments P/L; Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L.(4) The firms were used to meet a number of short-term needs for labour for differing periods of time and in different teams. Value for money was the essential test against which the firms were assessed, having regard to their reputation in the market and their ability to supply the necessary skills for the period required.(5)—(7) Not applicable. There were no formal tender processes.(8) This information is not available as any such amount is incorporated into the total fees charged.(9) (a) Nil.(b) The amounts paid to the firms were:$ADECCO11,745.70Ecco Personnel17,369.47Drake Personnel58,962.66The Green and Green Group P/L9,390.86Hays Accountancy4,303.50Kowalski Personnel875.43 Select Appointments P/L340.61Wizard Personnel and Office Services P/L55,357.12(10) (a) $52,658.90.(b) $105,686.45.(11) (a) The total known requirements at present are for 11 people for differing periods of time and in different teams. It is likely that there will be other ad hoc requirements for short term relief which have not been determined at this stage.(b) The PSMPC has not undertaken any projections for labour requirements to be met by labour-hire firms beyond June 1998.(12) None.Torres Strait Regional Authority(1) Nil.(2)—(12) Not applicable.3662(Question No. 2762)27623662McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) Which projects has the Government announced will be financed under the Federation Fund.(2) With respect to each project referred to in part (1), (a) when did the Government announce the project, (b) what is the total expected cost and (c) in which financial years will the expenditure be incurred.3662Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Please see answer to question (2).(2) Table 1 below provides information answering Questions 1 and 2 (a) and (b).Table 1: Federation Fund Projects to Date (a)ProjectDate of AnnouncementCommonwealth Funding ($m)Estimated Total Cost($m)National Museum of Australia, including the associated building for the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)Announced in 1997-98 Budget147147Darwin to Alice Springs Railway23 August 1997100, conditional upon acceptance of a private sector tender to build, own and operate the line. 1200National Gallery of Victoria13 November 199725136Jervoise Bay Infrastructure Enhancement (WA)26 January 199880204Corowa Bridge (NSW-VIC)12 February 199812, conditional upon Victoria and NSW agreeing to share costs of ongoing maintenance and integrating the bridge with the road system.12 (plus road integration costs—not yet determined)St Andrew's Cathedral (NSW)27 February 19985 10.6Brisbane Light Rail Project (Briztram).13 March 199865, conditional upon acceptance of a private sector tender to build and operate the light rail network.210(a) As of 27 April 1998(2) (c) Other than for the National Museum of Australia and St Andrew's Cathedral (see Table 2 below), the sequencing of payments for individual Federation Fund projects will be determined when all projects have been selected.Table 2: Pattern of Expenditure (a) $m:Project1997-981998-991999-002000-01National Museum of Australia, including the associated building for the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (b)6.449.774.716.2St Andrews Cathedral05.000(a) As of 27 April 1998.(b) National Museum expenditure patterns may be subject to variation resulting from approvals processes.3663(Question No. 2778)27783663Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March, 1998:(1) Did the Government of the United Arab Emirates speak to a representative of the Australian Government before 6 December 1997 about an attempt by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai; if so, (a) who was spoken to, (b) what was discussed and (c) what action did the Government take.(2) Did members of his staff speak with Ms Grace Wells or other representatives of Fynwest Pty Ltd about the facilitation of passports for stevedoring trainees seeking to travel to Dubai; if so, (a) who, (b) what assistance did his office provide, (c) was he advised of the action taken and what discussions occurred on the matter between him and his office and other Ministers and their offices.3663Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government has no record or recollection of any conversation between the Government of the United Arab Emirates and any representative of the Australian Government prior to Mr Brereton's question in Parliament of 3 December, about the proposal by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai.Following the matters raised by the Opposition in Parliament on 3 and 4 December about the proposal by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai, on 5 December the UAE Ambassador, Mr Al-Falasi, called on officers of the Middle East and Africa Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to express his concern regarding the impact the issue was having on the relationship between Australia and the UAE. The Government noted his concerns.(2) The Minister's Office has no record or recollection of having been contacted by Ms Grace Wells or other representatives of Fynwest Pty Ltd or of any reference to Fynwest or its project. The Office receives numerous inquiries seeking assistance with the issue of urgent passports, including some which are unidentified. These requests are routinely forwarded to the Department's Passport Office. However, neither the Office nor the Minister have any recollection of the issue prior to it being raised in Parliament.3663(Question No. 2786)27863663Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 24 March 1998:Further to the answers to questions Nos. 2247 (Hansard , 1 December 1997, page 11743) and 2743 (Hansard , 2 March 1998, page 113), what action has the Government taken to implement the recommendation by the Gration Committee for the early implementation of a single long service award for all members of the Australian Defence Force.3663Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Regulations for the new Defence Long Service Medal have been completed and Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen is now being sought. Once Royal Assent has been gained, final action will be undertaken to manufacture the Medal for issue to eligible persons.3663(Question No. 2815)28153663Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) How many applications for air charter services were received but not approved in (a) 1996 and (b) 1997 because they were not in accordance with his Department's information requirements.(2) In each case referred to in part (1) (a) who was the applicant (b) what was the country of origin and (c) how many flights were covered.3664Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) In 1996 and 1997 there were no instances where an application for charter services, where the applicant decided to proceed with the application, was not approved.Some parties who approach the Department do not proceed with formal applications because it becomes clear to them that they are unlikely to meet the requirements of the Air Navigation Act 1920.It should be noted that where applicants for charter services do not initially provide all the information required to allow the Department to complete its analysis of the proposed charters, the Department contacts the applicant and provides advice on what further information is required.This helps potential charter operators with ensuring their applications address the legislative requirements for non-scheduled services as outlined in the Air Navigation Act 1920.3664(Question No. 2819)28193664Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:What is the Department's position regarding the participation of contract staff in local workshop occupational health and safety committees.3664Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Defence Organisation encourages the participation of contractors in workplace occupational health and safety committees.3664(Question No. 2831)28313664McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:(1) Has the Government considered the Industry Commission's report on the private health insurance industry, dated 28 February 1997. (2) Will the Government introduce legislation to implement recommendations of the report; if so, (a) what is the timetable for the legislation, (b) will recommendations concerning lifetime community rating be implemented and (c) is he able to outline the contents of the legislation.3664Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Government provided an interim response to the report on 10 April 1997. Further detailed responses will be announced in due course.3664(Question No. 2832)28323664McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:(1) Has the Medicare office in Hurstville, NSW, conducted a review of its operations according to performance indicators; if so, did the performance indicators include the length of waiting time for customers; if so, what was the waiting time (a) before and (b) after the closure of the Medicare office at Rockdale, NSW.3664Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There has been no formal review of waiting times for Medicare offices in NSW.3664(Question No. 2868)28683664Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2643 (Hansard , 30 March 1998, page 1361), what conferences has his department sponsored since 2 March 1996 other than the $10,000 sponsorship of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) national conference.(2) Did ACCI representatives discuss the sponsorship with him, his staff or his Department before it was granted; if so, whom.(3) What was the basis of his Department's sponsorship of the ACCI national conference and under which scheme was the grant made.3664Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The following conferences have been sponsored by Department of Industry, Science and Tourism since 2 March 1996:- Final Exchange Farewell of the 6th International Tasmanian Aquaculture Exchange on 25-28 July 1997, ($1,500).- International Conference Support Scheme (ICSS) funded under the International Science and Technology Program, ($520,000).- Business Enterprise Centre Network Victoria Inc, "Linkages for Growth" Conference 3-4 July 1997, ($ 3,000).- Micro Business Network "Powering for Profit" Conference on 12 October 1997, ($100).- "Industry Codes of Conduct, The Way Forward", 22 November 1996, ($17,000).- Marine Outlook `97 Conference, February 1997, ($5,000).- Asia-Pacific Fishing Conference, July 1997, ($14,500).- Advisory Council on Industrial Property, October 1996, ($1,900).- National Licensing Executives Society Conference, March 1997, ($5,000).- National Intellectual Property Teacher's Workshop, ANU, ($1,000).- International IP Workshop, (approx. $150,000).- APEC Intellectual Property Rights Expert Group Meeting, ($5,000).- Institute of Public Administration, 19-21 November 1997, ($2,000).- Ausbuild 1996 HIA National Convention, 18-21 May 1996, ($512).- Ausbuild 1996 HIA National Convention, 18-21 May 1996, ($26,266).- International Housing & Home Warranty Conference, October 1996, ($30,000).- National Trade & Investment Conference, 2-4 December 1996, ($200,000).- Building Global Standards Conference, 5 May 1997, ($19,163).- National Workshop on Regulation for Consumer Protection in the Building Industry, 10-11 July 1997, ($3,500).- Association of Consulting Engineers Australia/Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand Conference, August 1997, ($2,000).- Catalyst 1997 Project: Designing Eco-Solutions International Planning and Design University of Canberra Conference, 5-8 December 1997, ($5,000).- Building Better Global Standards Conference, 22 January 1998, ($13,788). - 1998 National Housing Conference, 26-28 March 1998, ($10,000).- HIA INTABuild Conference, 20-26 May 1998, ($50,000).- Industry Commission Workshop on Microeconomic Reform and Productivity Growth, 26-27 February 1998, ($2,000).- 1996 Asia Pacific Tourism Association (APTA) Conference, 17 September 1996, ($5,000).- 1997 Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, 6 June 1997, ($8,572).- Asia Pacific Tourism Conference, 13 November 1997, ($2,000).- 1998 Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, 11 February 1998, ($13,086).- Tourism Council Australia-National Tourism Seminar Program, July 1996, ($931).- Catalyst 97, 5-8 December 1997, ($1,200).- Ecotourism Association of Australia Conference, 14-18 November 1996, ($25,000).- World Heritage Tropical Forests Conference, 2-6 September 1996, ($10,000).- Pathways to Sustainability, 1-5 June 1997, ($5,000).- National Regional Tourism Conference, 1-3 May 1997, ($5,000).- National Regional Tourism Conference, 3-5 May 1998, ($2,000).- First National Wine Tourism Conference, 7-9 May 1998, ($2,000).- PSB Innovation Expo Conference—Improving the Public Service 1 April 1996—($8070).- 1997 Commercialising Health Innovations Forum April 1996, ($10,000).- Innovations Expo Conference, 27 August 1996, ($10,000).- 12th National Australian Quality Conference, 6-8 April 1997, ($25,000).- Warren Centre Wealth Creation Conference, 28-29 July 1997, ($10,000).- Association Software Showcase, August 1997, ($2,000).- Small Business Expo, August 1997, ($7,500).- Business Enterprise Conference, September 1997, ($15,000).- Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, 21-23 September 1997, ($15,000).- 8th Asian Retailers Convention and Exhibition, 28-31 October 1997, ($5,000). - 4th Annual Australian Venture Capital Conference (AVCAL), 11th November 1997, ($10,000).- Australian Space Research Institute Annual Conference, 6-8 December 1997, ($1,500).- Enterprise Forum—Growth Through Innovation, 11 March 1998, ($10,000).(2) The sponsorship was discussed with Departmental Officers.(3) The conference was funded as part of the AusIndustry National Marketing Strategy from Enterprise Development Program Bill No 1.3666(Question No. 2882)28823666Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What (a) types and (b) quantities of Australian beef were exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.(2) What was the average price per kilogram received by beef producers for each type of beef referred to in part (1).(3) What was the (a) landed cost and (b) average retail price of each type of beef exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.3666Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation that—(1) Export volume data has been categorised in the form under which the market operates.Australian Beef/Veal exports to Korea 1996-97TypeTonnes shipped weightChilled Beef20Frozen Bone-in Quarter Beef31864Frozen Bone-in Cuts5657Frozen Boneless Beef17905Frozen Boneless Bull44Frozen Boneless Veal22TOTAL BEEF AND VEAL55 512(2) and (3) The export product categories are usually much more detailed than the categories of livestock being marketed in Australia, reflecting the carcase breakup into its component parts for marketing to the various sectors of the trade in each destination. Consequently it is difficult to provide an average price per kilogram received by beef producers for each type of beef exported.As an example, Korean grass-fed steers is the accepted livestock benchmark category for the Korean market. Beef exported to Korea however is sold against a number of different product specifications such as grass-fed quarter beef, grain-fed quarter beef, grass-fed fullsets and a range of primals that reflect the Government tender (LPMO) specification or the Simultaneous Buy and Sell (SBS) quota buyer requirements.Indicator price for steers to Korea, AUS-MEAT Classes 28—30, Fat score 3 (Dressed carcase weight 260.1 to 300 kg)—Qld sale yard prices A cents/kg—ranged from 149 cents/kg on 5 July 1996 to a peak of 184 cents/kg in October 1996, down 179 cents/kg on 27 June 1997.Export price information has been calculated back to Australian cents/per kilo FAS.Australian export prices (A cents/kg FAS) received in Korean LPMO tenders in 1996-97:Frozen Grainfed Quarter BeefFrozen Grassfed QuartersFrozen Grassfed Fullsets256—269154—190286—331In Korea, access to the retail sector (SBS) tender system is only in an embryonic stage and no reliable retail price data is available, especially for 1996-97.3667(Question No. 2883)28833667Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What (a) types and (b) quantities of Australian beef were exported to Japan in 1996-97.(2) What was the average price per kilogram received by beef producers for each type of beef referred to in part (1).(3) What was the (a) landed cost and (b) average retail price of each type of beef exported to Japan in 1996-97.3667Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation that—(1) Export volume data has been categorised in the form under which the market operates.Australian Beef/Veal exports to Japan 1996-97TypeTonnes shipped weightChilled Beef- Grain—fed78,820- Grass—fed102,895Total181,715Frozen Beef- Grain—fed15,901- Grass—fed83,553Total99,454TOTAL BEEF281,169(2) and (3) The export product categories are usually much more detailed than the categories of livestock being marketed in Australia, reflecting the carcase breakup into its component parts for marketing to the various sectors of the trade in each destination. Consequently it is difficult to provide an average price per kilogram received by beef producers for each type of beef exported.As an example, Japanese grass-fed bullocks is the accepted livestock benchmark category for the Japanese market.Indicator price for steers to Japan, AUS-MEAT Classes 32—40, Fat score 4 (Dressed weight 300.1 to 400 kg)—Qld Over-the-Hooks prices A cents/kg in 1996/97—averaged 169 cents/kg for Grassfed and 209 cents/kg for Grainfed.Export price information has been calculated back to Australian cents/per kilo FAS.Australian beef export average prices (A cents/kg FAS) to Japan in 1996-97:Chilled Grassfed FullsetChilled Shortfed FullsetChilled Longfed Fullsets336460762In Japan, while upwards of 40% of our product finds its way to the retail counter, valid price series data has proven difficult and expensive to obtain on a regular basis. Of the 8,000 or so stores that Australian beef is retailed through each year in Japan, the Agricultural and Livestock Industries Corporation (ALIC) collects price series data on Australian beef using a 16 store sample. While limited in its scope, the survey does provide some insight into retail prices for imported beef in the period under review: 1996-97 Average retail price Yen/kgSirloin- regular price3,534- discount price2,485 Chuck- regular price1,695- discount price1,241Brisket- regular price1,757- discount price1,183Round/Butt cuts- regular price1,952- discount price1,2683668(Question No. 2884)28843668Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What (a) types and (b) quantities of Australian beef were exported to the USA in 1996-97.(2) What was the average price per kilogram received by beef producers for each type of beef referred to in part (1).(3) What was the (a) landed cost and (b) average retail price of each type of beef exported to the USA in 1996-97.3668Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation that—(1) Export volume data has been categorised in the form under which the market operates.Australian Beef and Veal exports to USA in 1996-97TypeTonnes shipped weightPrimal cuts51,377.6Manufacturing160,098.8TOTAL211,476.4(2) & (3) Manufacturing cow is considered the livestock benchmark for the US manufacturing beef market.Australian prices received by beef producers, US Manufacturing Cow, AUS-MEAT Classes 22—26, Fat score 2 (Dressed weight 200.1 to 260 kg)—Qld. prices A cents/kg in 1996/97—averaged 197.7 cents/kg.Little, if any, Australian beef would find its way to the retail counter in the United States.In the US, grinding meat is sold on the basis of its chemical lean (CL) content. Price series for 65CL, 75CL, 80CL, and 90CL product are collated. Shipments of grinding meat however are not recorded by their CL content, only as trimming packs, grinding meat or as full muscle packs, so prices do not directly relate to the export categories.Australian Export Prices for USA Aust. cents/kg FASTrimmings85CL80CL75CL65CL1996/97 180.0166.2153.4124.03669(Question No. 2885)28853669Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) Did his Department place advertisements in all national media on Saturday, 21 March 1998, calling for tenders for a national coordinator for National Youth Week and place smaller advertisements on 23 March 1998 notifying that the tender had been cancelled; if so, why.(2) What was the (a) number of persons, (b) number of person hours and (c) cost to his Department involved in preparing the tender proposal.(3) Who decided to cancel the tender.(4) When was the decision to cancel the tender made.(5) Why was the tender cancelled.(6) Was he or a person in his office involved in cancelling the tender.(7) Was the placement of the advertisements on 21 March 1998 fully authorised by the appropriate officers in his Department.(8) Will National Youth Week proceed.3669Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Commonwealth and State Youth Ministers agreed to the proposal for a National Youth Week in November 1996. They nominated coordinators to work with the Commonwealth and it was eventually agreed by them that the first National Youth Week should be held in early 1999. In view of the need to make rapid progress to meet the timetable, an advertisement for a tender to provide a national coordinator was drawn up. The draft advertisement was circulated to the State and Territory coordinators for clearance. The Department placed the advertisement in the major metropolitan newspapers, the `Financial Review' and `The Australian' for publication on 21 March.It was however, decided at the Youth Ministers' Meeting on 20 March 1998 that the inaugural National Youth Week should be delayed until the year 2000 and that the next step should be a full feasibility study. It was by that stage too late to cancel the advertisement for a national coordinator due to appear the following day. A notification of cancellation of the tender was placed in the major metropolitan newspapers, the `Financial Review' and the `Australian' on 28 March 1998.(2) (a) Four persons were involved in direct preparation of the tender.(2) (b) Approximately 100 person hours in total were spent in preparing the tender.(2) (c) Approximately $2350 has been spent by the Department in preparing the tender proposal. It is however expected that some of the work undertaken in preparing the tender is likely to be utilised in the context of the feasibility study.(3) The decision to cancel the tender was made by the appropriate senior public servant in the department.(4) The decision to cancel the tender was made following the Youth Ministers' Meeting of 20 March 1998.(5) See (1) above.(6) See (3) above.(7) The placement of the advertisements for publication on 21 March 1998 was authorised by the appropriate senior public servant in the department.(8) It was decided at the meeting of Commonwealth and State Youth Ministers on 20 March, that, subject to a feasibility study, there would be a National Youth Week in the year 2000.