1998-05-263817REPS367101998-05-26Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements36713671Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be absent from question time today. He will be addressing the New South Wales Annual State Congress of the RSL in Burwood in Sydney. The Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel will answer questions on his behalf.The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the Hon. John Moore, will be absent from question time this week. He is attending the funeral of his father who died at the weekend. The Minister for Sport and Tourism will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice367136713671Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it a fact, as claimed by your latest departing member of your backbench, the member for Dickson, your GST will be presented to your party room as yet another fait accompli? Is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make recommendations to the government? Is this not misleading behaviour of a piece with your refusal to answer questions in this House on whether your GST will apply to health, education, rents and child care, and whether the rate of your GST will rise after it is introduced?3671Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, no, no, no.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition are silent, I will call the honourable member for Murray.36713671Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you inform the House what initiatives this government is taking to address the disadvantage suffered by indigenous Australians, and how will these initiatives contribute to this government's commitment to the reconciliation process?3671Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Murray for the question that was asked of me—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the opposition to remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, of re-affirming the commitment of my government to the reconciliation process. I also take the opportunity, because of what today is, of again saying that, although in a personal sense many Australians will feel sorrow and regret in relation to past injustices suffered by sections of the Australian community, it is the view of my government that a formal national apology of the type sought by others is not appropriate.That is a genuinely held belief. It is conscientiously held. It does not dispute the views that are held to the contrary by many other Australians. Rather, it is our view that the most appropriate way to address the disadvantage in the Australian community continuing to be suffered by the indigenous people of this country is to address in a contemporary, practical way their disadvantage in areas of health, housing and education.That is why, in 1998-99, nearly $1.9 billion will be spent on indigenous specific programs. We will have spent $700 million more in our first four years than the former government did in its previous four years. But we have targeted our efforts at areas where the disadvantage suffered by contemporary Australians in areas of health, housing, education and employment are effectively addressed.Also, on behalf of the government, Senator Herron has announced a package of measures amounting to $63 million in response to the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on the generation of children that were subject to the practices which have come under such very harsh criticism. Mr Speaker, I believe that this is not an issue that should be manipulated for political purposes, and I say to those who sit opposite that the way in which it has been handled has in fact amounted, in the eyes of many Australians, to manipulation for party political purposes. It is possible for Australians of good will to hold different views on the appropriate response to the Bringing them home report and issues of native title, yet to be united in their commitment to the process of reconciliation. I think the overwhelming majority of Australians want reconciliation, the overwhelming majority of Australians support reconciliation, and the overwhelming majority of Australians want party politics removed from issues of indigenous affairs.36723672Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the estimate of Dr Neil Warren prepared for the Business Council last year that a comprehensive GST imposed at a rate of 10 per cent would increase the consumer price index by 5.6 per cent, bringing inflation up to more than three times its present rate? How can you pretend this huge jump in inflation will not create pressure to increase interest rates?3672Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, when it comes to issues of interest rates, I deal in fact, and the fact is that when you were in government housing interest rates went to 17 per cent; when you were in government small business interest rates went to 20.5 per cent. Since we have been in government, housing interest rates have come down to their lowest levels in 30 years. Since we have been in government, small business interest rates have come down to their lowest levels in 30 years. Since we have been in government, we have presided over reductions in housing interest rates.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order concerning relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was very specific. It asked about a GST, increasing inflation and increasing interest rates—nothing else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has made his point of order. The Prime Minister is answering his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Under my government, inflation and interest rates have both come down; under your government, they both went up. Under your government, in 1990 housing interest rates reached the absolutely Himalayan levels of 17 to 18 per cent. In 1991, small business rates reached 20.5 per cent. Under my government, in contrast, we now have reductions in housing interest rates which are worth $330 a month to the average home buyer. When you go around all the electorates of Australia, you find literally thousands of Australians who are grateful—after 13 years of the crushing effects of high interest rates on small business and home buyers—that interest rates have come down under my government.Of the many choices that the Australian people will face over the months ahead, one of the starkest is between the low interest rates policies of the Howard government and the high interest rates reality of the Australian Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about relevance, Mr Speaker?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order concerning relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was about the effect of a GST. The word `GST' has not featured once in the Prime Minister's answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader is not now raising a new point of order. The latitude allowed ministers in this place has traditionally been fairly extensive. The Prime Minister was exercising the same relevance. Have you finished your answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes.36723672Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Is the Acting Treasurer aware of proposals to broaden the existing tax scales, as floated on the weekend? Minister, what is the government's response to these proposals?3672Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I am aware of suggestions that flowed from a decision made by the opposition at the weekend in respect of the proposals for tax credit benefits to families. That information came fairly quickly from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition was asked how he is going to pay for his proposals for tax benefits to families and he said at the time, `We will give you some more details of this at a later time.'Only 24 hours elapsed, when, at a doorstop yesterday morning, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, truth serum still running through his veins—we know only a couple of weeks ago he finally admitted to the $10.5 billion deficit—was asked by a journalist, `So you couldn't rule out new taxes and charges to fund it?'—that is, to fund the Leader of the Opposition's announcement of the day before. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in response, `Perhaps a little bit of rearrangement or broadening of the existing tax scales elsewhere.'The Australian people know all about this broadening, this little bit of rearrangement. Remember the broadening on a sales tax on fridges in 1993? What did that broadening translate into? An increase in taxes from 10 per cent up to 12 per cent. Remember the little bit of rearrangement on sales tax on the family car? Sales tax was supposed to go down to 15 per cent, but up it went to 22 per cent. Remember the little bit of broadening on sales tax on soap and toothpaste? It went up from 20 per cent to 22 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—A little more silence, please. The honourable member for Denison; the honourable member for Prospect.HQ5Mr FAHEY—We know when the opposition talks about broadening that they talk about tax increases. And why wouldn't they? The whole history of Labor is about increasing debt, increasing deficit and increasing taxes.The Australian tax system needs reform and it will get reform. That reform will be announced by the coalition. We will not tinker with the system, nor will we increase taxes as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated yesterday. We will bring in a simple, fair system which rewards families, encourages businesses and creates jobs. It will be a system that builds Australia. We know every time Labor talks about tax that their history indicates it will mean tax increases. The Australian people cannot trust Labor. They did not trust them in 1996 and they will never trust them again.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the House will remain silent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Opposition members might like to hear their colleague. I suggest members of the opposition remain quiet while their colleague asks his question.36733673O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the estimate of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform that it would cost between $2 and $3 billion in extra welfare payments to compensate social security pensioners and beneficiaries for the impact upon them of a GST? How is the government proposing to pay for that massive increase in social security outlays?3673Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not seen that particular estimate. Therefore, I am not going to confirm, deny or in any way comment on it. As the member opposite has raised the issue, I am going to say something about the present taxation system. I think the present taxation system has many maladies and many weaknesses. Therefore, I find it very strange that the Labor Party has such a loving attachment to the present taxation system. I cannot understand—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Ah!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. When the members of the Government are silent, the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order concerning relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was highly specific. It quoted $2 billion to $3 billion in extra social security outlays to compensate pensioners for a GST and then asked how the government is proposing to pay for the massive increase. There was no discursive element of the general taxation system.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is now arguing the proposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, he's not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will remain silent. He can argue a point of order; he cannot argue the detail of the subject matter before the House. The Prime Minister, in response, is totally within the standing orders. I ask him to remain relevant to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying before the Leader of the Opposition made his claimed point of order, I cannot understand why the Australian Labor Party is so captivated by the present taxation system, because the present taxation system is not only inefficient, it not only penalises Australian manufacturers and therefore destroys Australian jobs, but also it is quite unfair to many low and middle income earners in Australia.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Do you think a GST will make it better?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!DT4CREANMr Crean—Senator Parer. Look at him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is barely surprising that the Labor Party should, I suppose, given its history, cling on to the existing wholesale taxation system.DT4CREANMr Crean—You're keen on the family trust.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This question was specifically about the compensation necessary for a GST. They have welded a GST around their ankle and now they are trying to escape the consequences.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are now arguing the proposition. That is not within the standing orders. Those who seek to raise a point of order can argue the point of order; they cannot argue the proposition. The Prime Minister is entirely within the standing orders.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will remain silent. The member for Grayndler.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The history of the Australian Labor Party, when you look at it, is one of great affection for and attachment to the existing wholesale taxation system.DT4CREANMr Crean—Like you are to family trusts.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Despite all the solemn, hypocritical and humbug-ridden declarations by the Labor Party in 1993 about the goods and services tax propositions of the former coalition leader, when the Labor Party was returned in 1993, it proceeded, in the now infamous Dawkins budget of 1993, to massively increase—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order as to relevance again. This was a very specific question about compensation related to the GST package—some $2 billion to $3 billion. He may not have seen the quote; he should then simply sit down.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—A point of order!UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Sit down, Tuckey.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Relevance has to mean something vaguely adjacent to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor on a point of order.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that you have ruled that the Prime Minister is in order in his answer. These people are challenging your ruling and they have to do that under the appropriate rules of the parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for O'Connor but I point out that the Prime Minister is continuing his response.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition, including the member for Rankin and the member for Grayndler, should remain silent. If the Leader of the Opposition raises a point of order, it is quite appropriate for him to do so and the answer is ongoing. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. He still remains relevant to the proposition regarding tax.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, he is not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying, in 1993 the Labor Party swore blind to the Australian public that they were opposed to higher levels of indirect taxation.Dr Lawrence interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—But as soon as they were returned, despite the l-a-w promises—Dr Lawrence interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fremantle.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler.ZD4Mr HOWARD—they massively increased, to the disadvantage of many Australians, the rates under the very unfair existing wholesale taxation system. The reality is that the Australian Labor Party was not only a party of high taxation but one of high inflation and high interest rates.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 145. I have been very patient in listening to the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not for you to be patient. You may raise a point of order. Your patience is entirely irrelevant.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—He has given a dissertation on the history of the tax system and comments on the present tax system and the wholesale sales tax system.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not for you to comment about the detail.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I asked a very specific question as to how the government is proposing to pay for the GST and the massive increase in social security outlays that will flow from that. I ask you to bring the Prime Minister to the point of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question related to taxation and its application. The Prime Minister is responding. The Prime Minister is entirely within the standing orders.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Not only was Labor a party of high taxation, high inflation and Himalayan-level interest rates but, by contrast, I am very proud to say that, in the first three budgets that the coalition has brought down, on not one occasion were there any increases in the levels of general taxation. There was no increase in personal tax; there was no increase in sales tax; there was no increase in company tax. By contrast, of course, immediately the Labor Party were returned in 1993, having put their hand on their collective heart and said to the Australian people, `We are against indirect tax increases,' what did the Keating-Beazley-Dawkins government do?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Never ever! Never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They immediately massively increased sales tax and excise on a whole range of items.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham, the member for Prospect, the member for Lyons, the member for Isaacs, the member for Corio.ZD4Mr HOWARD—When it comes to tax, when it comes to interest rates, when it comes to inflation, there is one absolute constant about the Australian Labor Party: you can never trust them.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If members insist on making so much noise, I have no alternative but to suggest that they leave the House for a period. I suggest that they remain silent.36763676Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can he give the House the details of the cancellation of the passport belonging to Mr Christopher Skase. Also, can he inform the House how and why this passport was issued in the first place.3676Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. I appreciate his interest in this matter. As members of the House may know, I, on behalf of the government, cancelled Christopher Skase's passport last year.Mr Dargavel interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fraser.4G4Mr DOWNER—We as a government are absolutely determined that Mr Skase should be returned to Australia and face the charges for which he is wanted. During the last 24 hours I looked at some of the background to the issuing of the passport which we cancelled last year. I note that the passport which was cancelled was issued to Mr Skase in July 1993.VT4REIDMr Reid—Who was in charge?4G4Mr DOWNER—Somebody asked the question: who was in charge? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was then the minister in charge. This passport which was issued in July—Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.4G4Mr DOWNER—I think you would like to hear this. This passport that was issued in July 1993 replaced an earlier passport that Mr Skase had. The passport that it replaced was due to expire in January 1999. I make the point that Mr Skase went to Spain, I understand, in 1992. To achieve Spanish citizenship and therefore, of course, to be able to live there indefinitely, you have to remain, I am advised by my department, in Spain for 10 years. So the original passport, which would have expired in 1999, was not adequate to meet the time span, the point being that, having been issued with a new passport, it was theoretically possible that Mr Skase could have remained in Spain on that passport for long enough to qualify for Spanish citizenship.There may have been a number of other reasons why that passport was replaced, but what is interesting and, I know, will interest the House is the material relevant to the issuing of that passport in July 1993. On 8 January 1993, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued an alert in relation to Mr Skase's passport. That alert said that, if the embassy in Madrid or indeed any other embassy around the world were to have an application for a passport from Mr Skase, that application should be referred to Canberra, where it would be given consideration. This was an alert issued on 8 January 1993. What is particularly interesting is the file note from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Mr Dargavel interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser has been warned, and I will not warn him again.4G4Mr DOWNER—Honourable members on this side of the House will remember, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remember, that he was the minister responsible for passports at that time. What is interesting is that this note from the department, which is the note recording the alert that was issued, has a very interesting handwritten annotation on it by one of the officials who was then in the department. The annotation says:In relation to Mr Skase's passport, should a passport be applied for, the minister should be advised.That is interesting. We can only ask, given that the department decided that the minister should be advised if Mr Skase should apply for another passport—Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect has been warned, and I will not warn her again.4G4Mr DOWNER—We can only assume that the former minister was advised. One can only assume that, because the annotation said that the department would advise you. What role does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have in the issuing of a passport to Mr Skase that we had to cancel? That is the question the Labor Party should be answering today—not just making trivial interjections.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the government are silent, I will call the deputy leader.Government members interjecting—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I haven't called you yet.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the government are silent. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Is it in order for the foreign minister to make a misleading aspersion of that kind—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader has no point of order. The foreign minister will continue.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—without referring to the absence of any legal discretion on the part of the minister or the department to make any contrary—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader has no point of order and will resume his seat.4G4Mr DOWNER—For the information of the House, I table the departmental document so that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can have a look at it later and see the annotation on it—and so can the rest of his colleagues and others in Australia.Let me say in conclusion that it is up to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to explain himself in relation to this matter. I have no further information, but it is up to him to explain himself, to explain why an annotation on a departmental note said that he should be informed if Mr Skase should apply for a passport. Presumably the minister was informed or his office was informed. Perhaps, in that environment, the famous Miles Kupa defence, which was so disgracefully put up many years ago, will be put up yet again. In conclusion, let me say that today I have instructed all our posts to request their host governments to refrain from issuing Mr Skase with any passport whatsoever—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about the Alexander Downer in-tray?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Is there any stuff coming into your office, Alexander, that you have looked at?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.4G4Mr DOWNER—And to follow the example which was set by the Seychelles government in refusing an application from Mr Skase for a passport. We do not want to see Mr Skase get any passport whatsoever. We want to see him brought back to Australia.36773677Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family Services, who yesterday failed to rule out a GST on child care.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will leave out any comment and ask his question.YK6Mr WILTON—Is the minister aware that a 10 per cent GST would add a further $17 per week to child-care costs? Minister, just how do you expect working families to afford this? Or is it the truth that this government is only too happy to force women out of the work force and drive the living standards of Australian families down?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That question contains argument. Next time, I suggest that you look at your question very carefully. It is technically out of order, but I will allow it in this instance.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are you raising a point of order?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I am clearly raising a point of order, in relation to standing order 144, which says that, if inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical expressions are included in the question, it should be ruled out of order. I ask you to rule accordingly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have just commented that, in my view, the question is technically out of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. I am advising all members that there are many questions in this place from both sides that are, similarly, technically out of order. In this instance, I am allowing the question, but I suggest to all members that, if they do not draft their questions in accordance with requirements of the standing orders, I will have no alternative but to rule them out of order.3678Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I always seem to get caught on technicalities. The issue that you have raised I answered yesterday in the context of any package the government develops with regard to a necessary change in taxation in this country will be possessed of fairness. That will apply to any of those areas for which I have ministerial responsibility—that is, disabilities, child care, nursing homes, and so on.This gives me the opportunity to answer the second part of your question with regard to child care, the allegation you make about women not being able to access affordable child care. I have addressed this issue on several occasions, but there is one fundamental point that you miss: the number of women in the work force with children under the age of 15 has remained constant at 58 per cent since 1995.Opposition members interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—It is true. Here is the graph. I am fond of showing graphs. This is something that you can understand. There has been no reduction of women in the work force with regard to child care since 1995. What you allege is absolutely false.36783678Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Has he answered the letter yet?AK6Mrs GASH—You are the rudest ignorant oaf I have ever come across.Honourable members interjecting—AK6Mrs GASH—The member for Banks.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that members of the opposition remain silent.AK6Mrs GASH—The member for Banks, I am referring to.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the honourable member for Gilmore waits for a moment. One of the characteristics of the correspondence I have received from members of the public since I have been in this post has been that they deplore the behaviour of members in this place. I suggest that the reason for the comment from the honourable member for Gilmore is part of the problem. I suggest that people on both sides respect that this is a debating forum and that it will not be treated with the respect it deserves unless we treat it in the same way.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Gilmore will resume her seat. The honourable member for Watson on a point of order.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Yes, Mr Speaker. I thought she had finished her question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Gilmore.AK6Mrs GASH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course I qualified that as referring to the member for Banks.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on both sides will remain silent. The member for Banks will remain silent too. The member for Gilmore has the call and when the House is silent I will ask her to put her question.AK6Mrs GASH—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith. The member for Prospect has been warned twice and I suggest she does not speak again.AK6Mrs GASH—Minister, would you advise the House how the Maritime Union of Australia is raising funds in the course of the waterfront dispute. How are these funds being used?3679Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question, and I thank her for her qualification. It is an interesting question, though, because there is no doubt that the MUA are pulling out all stops basically to prop up the inefficiencies, the rorting and the overmanning which have so characterised Australia's waterfront. It is difficult to assess, but we know they are spending something like $350,000 a week on their payments to members at $250 a week. There are very severe financial strains on this union. One of the ironies of this dispute is that they are now working in the situation where they are paying for their own efficiencies, which is quite a turning of the tables on what has been happening for a long time in this country—namely, that everybody else in Australia was subsidising their inefficiencies.The MUA certainly has a fundraising effort at work. It is interesting to know who is one of the chief co-organisers of the MUA's fundraising efforts. You might ask: are they fundraising in support of the small businesses that have lost business as a result of this dispute? No, I do not think so. Is there any concern for the businesses that have lost exports as a result of the Columbus Canada being held up off the west coast of the US? No. Who do we find is the co-organiser of the MUA's fundraising efforts? None other than the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party.I table a letter from the National Secretariat of the Labor Party which is seeking $200,000 a week, a total of $800,000, on behalf of the Labor Party for the MUA. There is no better evidence of how you people are standing shoulder to shoulder with the MUA as it sets out to destroy Australian jobs. Why? Because you are defending a union that thinks it is fair enough for somebody to be on an average income of $60,000 to $101,000 a year and that gives this country crane rates and productivity levels which make Australia an international laughing-stock. You are a gutless leader because you are not prepared to stand up for the national interest.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the way in which he addresses himself in this House. I realise he is trying to prove a point vis-a-vis the question of references to him as an oaf—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not argue a proposition. That is not a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—but there is an obligation in this chamber—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The obligation in this chamber is to address his remarks through you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—To that degree it is.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, I see!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham! The minister will address his reply through the chair and refrain from casting aspersions on other members in this place.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, you would be very interested, I know, in this document. It is from an Institute of Public Affairs backgrounder. It shows the financial links between the Labor Party, Labor when they were in government and the trade union movement. What we have seen for years and years and years is that the Labor Party in government provide taxpayers funds to the unions and in return using those taxpayers' funds they come back into the trade union movement for political support. Back in 1993-94—just to take one year—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, a point of order, Mr Speaker! 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.WI4Mr REITH—Yes, this hurts. This shows you for the conspirator you are.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order which goes to relevance: the question to him was specifically about how the MUA was being funded and who was funding the MUA to work for free on the waterfront to clear the backlog and to keep their children supported. That was what the question was about. This answer is absolutely immaterial to that question and it should be ruled out of order, particularly given that he is mounting an absolutely unwarranted attack on this side of the House and therefore is breaking standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will now resume his seat. You are no longer making a point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the government are silent and when the member for Burke is silent: the minister should address the question. He is now ranging slightly wide of the original purport of the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—Hear, hear!WI4Mr REITH—It is very relevant, Mr Speaker, because the fact of the matter is that for years and years this Labor Party has been using taxpayers' funds to fund the trade union movement, and in return for that you have been giving in on key policy areas.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The minister is not now responding directly to the question put to him. I suggest that he should do so.WI4Mr REITH—The question put to me was: how are they being funded? The point I make is that they are being funded by the Labor Party, as this letter demonstrates. This has been going on for years and years in this country. As an example, in 1993-94, $548,000 in one year was paid out by the Labor Party government to the Maritime Union of Australia.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, come on, Mr Speaker.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order: the question was specific to the context of this dispute and the fundraising associated with this dispute over the course of the last few months. There was no expansive element of that question—and perhaps commonsense might have suggested that, if this what he wanted to do, there should have been, but there was not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. He is now starting to argue the proposition. The minister should respond to the question. As I suggested before, I think he is going a little wider than the original purport of the question required.WI4Mr REITH—Let me just conclude that aspect of my point: when Labor was in for 13 years, nearly $100 million of taxpayers' funds was channelled through to the unions. The point is—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—How is this relevant?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am listening to the minister's answer.WI4Mr REITH—This hurts because this exposes you for the weak leader you are.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent: had you finished your answer?WI4Mr REITH—No, I have not finished. The point I want all Australians to know is that you people are hand in glove with the MUA. That is one of the problems in Australian politics.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The level of noise in this House is such that I could not hear the minister.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition would have also found it difficult to do so. Has he another point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance: you have already ruled that this line of the answer is irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have not heard anything since you last raised your point of order given the noise in the place. I suggest that the minister might address his answer to the question raised of him.WI4Mr REITH—The second part of the question was: how are these funds being used? The point I am making is that we now have the Labor Party funding the MUA, and in return how are these funds being used? They are being used to keep the pressure on the Leader of the Opposition so that the other day we saw him and heard him publicly advocating compulsory unionism, which is what gives this union its stranglehold on the Australian economy. It is Labor's policy today to repeal the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Why are they doing that? Because they are in cahoots with the MUA against the national interest.These matters need to be revealed so that the Australian public knows that as the MUA is acting illegally, as they are in breach of the Trade Practices Act, the reality is that they are doing so with the support, as always, of the Australian Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, you are; you are the one acting illegally.WI4Mr REITH—What we want to know is exactly how many dollars have been raised. How many dollars have you provided to the MUA? How long will you continue to be paying the MUA to maintain their campaign? Other than the secondary boycott provisions, what other promises have you made to the MUA? Lastly, Bob Carr in New South Wales signed a protocol with the MUA. We want to know what deals you have done secretly with the MUA on this issue.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent—the member for Curtin.36813681Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts aware that the collapse of Australis has left many subscribers unable to access cable TV? In particular, does he know that many of those who have installed microwave or satellite receivers do not have the option of accessing cable services? What action is the government taking to ensure that all Australis subscribers can be serviced by an alternative pay TV provider?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—And they can't watch the footie!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent; I suggest that you keep quiet.3681Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I thank the member for Curtin for his question. Indeed, Australis was placed in liquidation on 18 May and it ceased broadcasting Galaxy TV services. I am advised by the minister for communications, my colleague Senator Alston, that Australis customers are currently able to receive the Austar pay TV service. Those customers who were previously receiving that service by MDS services, which you would be familiar with, are now currently without that service. But they are attempting to sell those assets.Depending on what will happen to that process—because they are under liquidation and you will appreciate that they are commercial matters rather than matters directly for the government—we are hopeful that the commercial outcome, given that there are values in the customer base that were held by Galaxy, will be that companies such as Austar, East Coast Television, Foxtel and indeed Optus will be able to come to arrangements to pick up the services that were previously offered through Australis and the Galaxy service. I will undertake, Mr Speaker, to keep the member advised of progress where it is appropriate to do so.36813681Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!JT4Mrs BAILEY—Can the minister inform the House what action the government has taken to raise the quality of education? Is the government aware of alternative policies for education?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Why don't you put One Nation last?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will remain silent.JT4Mrs BAILEY—Can the minister inform the House of the impact of these policies on schools and the quality of education in Australia?3682Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question, and I know how dedicated she is to improving the quality of education in her electorate. The government knows that, in these uncertain times, the greatest security for young people comes from having a quality education. That is why the government has been at particular pains to ensure that literacy standards in this country are raised and that it has achieved Australia's first national literacy standard and a national literacy plan.That is why we pursued school based apprenticeships because the previous government neglected the 70 per cent of young people who were not going straight from school to university. That is why we have encouraged schools to consider acting as employment agencies for their school leavers—a hugely popular policy which now has been adopted by over half the high schools in Australia. Of course, this government strongly supports school choice for low income families.It is quite clear at the present time that all these policies are under threat. They are under threat from the Labor Party. The Labor Party is threatening these policies and these achievements because it wants to put education policy in this country in the hands of the teacher unions. The Leader of the Opposition over the weekend went along to the Australian Education Union conference in Canberra and outlined the Labor Party's policies. But the main policy was this: he was going to set up a review of the entire Australian education system. His policy for education is a committee. It is a review. When will this review be? It will be after the election. So we will not hear any more detail about the Labor Party's education policies.Why was this so warmly applauded by the members of the Australian Education Union at the weekend conference? It was because they know who is going to be on this committee. They know who is going to be setting the policy directions for the Labor Party when it decides to formulate its education policy.Even the media could see that this was the platform for an ideologically driven sectional policy by the Labor Party. The Sydney Morning Herald was not fooled by the speech. In an editorial this morning headed `No policy', it concluded by saying:. . . it is clear that what is driving Labor's policy is a sensitivity to the demands of the various teachers' federations around Australia. What these federations want is not necessarily what education funding in Australia really requires. Mr Beazley has given his game away, in fact, with the promise of a "ground-up review of the entire Australian education system". This review creates a subsidised vehicle for the federations to drive their agendas forward.What are these agendas? We know that the agendas of the Australian Education Union, the agendas of the Labor Party, are to oppose higher literacy standards. They are to oppose proper reporting to parents. They are to oppose helping school leavers get jobs. They oppose the right of parents to choose their own school. They oppose an apprenticeship system which is not dominated by the trade unions. The result is a set of policies which, once again, would viciously abandon the most disadvantaged students in Australia's schools. They would abandon the policies that this government has put in place to give educational equity to disadvantaged students and help low income parents choose the schools that they believe would be appropriate for their young people.Parents of Australia should not make a mistake. The education policies that are driving quality in this country are at risk from the policies of the Australian Labor Party because it is a relentlessly sectional party. All it has to say is what the trade unions behind it tell it to say, whether it is to undermine Australian trade, whether it is to undermine literacy standards, whether it is to do away with school choice. There is nothing offered by the party and the weak Leader of the Opposition than the set of policies which are dictated to him by the trade unions. The only security parents in this country have that their children will receive a decent education with high literacy standards, proper reporting and school choice is the policies of this government.36833683Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when are you going to tell the mothers and fathers of Australia that the GST will increase the price of prams, bassinettes, milk, nappies, baby clothes and baby food?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume her seat. I have said before that I will take points of order at the end of a question, unless it is a matter relating to sub judice. This question at the moment, though, is going very close to being out of order.Honourable members interjecting—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—A point off order!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Points of order can be taken at any time.DT4CREANMr Crean—Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I know, but I have ruled that I will take it at the end of the question. The member will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga will put her question, and then I will hear the two points of order.PG6Ms MACKLIN—The GST will increase the cost of prams, bassinettes, milk, nappies, baby clothes and baby food—items which are currently exempt from sales tax.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, point of order!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the government will remain silent. I said I shall call the member for O'Connor after the member has put her question.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat!UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Name him!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat! Members of the opposition will remain silent. The member for Jagajaga should have in mind the admonition I gave the honourable member for Isaacs a little while ago. The nature of her question needs to be in accordance with standing orders.K26LATHAMMr Latham—It is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—At the moment it is going very close to not being so. I ask her to complete her question. I will then hear a point of order from the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for North Sydney.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—What about Parramatta?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Grayndler!PG6Ms MACKLIN—Prime Minister, isn't a GST a tax on child rearing—an extra burden that will be borne by low and middle income families with children? Don't these families deserve a tax credit, rather than a tax slug?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. I call the member for O'Connor on a point of order. can I have some silence from the government benches?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, standing order 98 states, `Any member may at any time raise a point of order.' I draw that to your attention. I now make my point of order. My point of order is—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. In answer to that first point of order, the member for O'Connor should be—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Move dissent, Wilson!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect should remain silent.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the opposition and members of the government have come to order, I will continue. With respect to the member for O'Connor's first point of order, I have already ruled that I will not take points of order in the middle of a proposition unless it is a question of sub judice. What is the second point you raised?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—My point of order that I stood on—by the way, while we are on specific arguments—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I want you to raise your point of order.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I call the member for North Sydney on a point of order.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I refer to standing order 144 and your previous request to the member for Isaacs. This question from the member for Jagajaga clearly breaches standing order 144 in that it contains arguments, inferences, imputations, ironical expressions and, quite clearly, hypothetical matter. Mr Speaker, I ask you please to uphold standing order 144 in this case.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is technically in order but only just. I must confess that, in the structure of a question which is asking details of a tax that is about to be raised, the question could have been more happily expressed. At the same time, it is a question relating to contents of a tax measure and it is therefore up to the Prime Minister to respond.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, further to that point of order, you said that the question relates to matters about taxes that will be raised. There is no suggestion that any taxes will be raised. It is a hypothetical matter and, therefore, it clearly should be ruled out of order. There is nothing on the table to suggest that taxes will be raised.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hear the honourable member but I believe it is a matter within the responsibility of the Prime Minister.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker! A point of order!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Has the member for O'Connor got another point of order? Before you rise, I ask members of the opposition to remain silent.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Under standing order 144, it is forbidden to put facts in a question in the manner that they were just provided, which was intended to mislead the House and the Australian people. The question was not a question. It was a statement of incorrect facts and it is, therefore, out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hear the honourable member. I believe the question is very close to being out of order but I will allow it. I call the Prime Minister.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He's back in APEC.3684Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—You might as well be at APEC for all the contribution you make here. Mr Speaker, can I say in reply to the honourable member for Jagajaga that, before I talk to the mothers and fathers of Australia about my tax policy, I would like to talk to the mothers and fathers of Australia about your tax policy. I would like to remind the mothers and fathers of Australia as they together, I hope, go into the kitchen—RH4KERRMr Kerr—This is a great adventure; Johnnies' magical mystery ride!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison. The member for Denison will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would like to remind them that, at the present time, they pay a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on detergent and other cleaners. I would remind them that that was increased from 20 per cent by a Labor government as recently as 1993. I would remind those same mothers and fathers of Australia that, when they buy flavoured milk, when they buy fruit juice—Mr Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect should be very careful.ZD4Mr HOWARD—when they buy biscuits, when they buy ice cream, when they buy cutlery and when they buy a new fridge, dishwasher, cooker or microwave, those things are all taxed at 12 per cent and that was increased from 10 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—I take a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. When members of the opposition are silent, I will call the member for Page on a point of order.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Mr Speaker, it is impossible to hear anything up this end of the parliament. The House is completely out of order. Several members have been warned and we still cannot hear the answer the Prime Minister is endeavouring to give.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Page raises quite a valid point. The level of noise is quite unacceptable. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would say to the—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Grayndler.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia that, under Labor's tax system, there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on cosmetics, shampoo—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Oh, tell them what your policies are going to do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Under standing order 304A, the honourable member for Grayndler will leave the House for the period of one hour.The honourable member for Grayndler thereupon withdrew from the chamber.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call. Members of the government will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would remind the mothers and fathers of Australia, as the member for Jagajaga invited me to address them, that when Labor was in office, under Labor's wholesale taxation system, the following items carried a 22 per cent—I repeat, a 22 per cent—wholesale tax rate: cosmetics, shampoo, soap, deodorant, toothpaste, toilet paper, non-medicated mouthwash and so on. That particular rate was increased from 20 per cent to 22 per cent by the Beazley-Keating Labor government.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was in relation to baby products. I have not yet known a baby that uses cosmetics.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Or uses detergent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will raise his point of order in the appropriate way.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Or uses a microwave!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I would remind the mothers and fathers of Australia that, when they go into the lounge room to watch television and they turn on the video or the stereo, all of those items now, right now, in May of 1998 carry a wholesale tax rate of 32 per cent—not two per cent, not 12 per cent, not 22 per cent, but 32 per cent.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Just answer the question!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I know you don't like being reminded of these very high rates of wholesale sales tax and, what is more, you don't like being reminded that, despite the affirmations to the contrary, you increased all of these rates in your 1993 budget. You went to the Australian public in 1993, you swore blind that you were against the proposal put forward by the coalition and, as soon as you sneaked back into office, despite all the protestations about l-a-w, law, you immediately rammed up every indirect tax rate that you could lay your hands on.So the first thing that I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia is, `Under Labor's wholesale tax system, under the taxation system the Labor Party wants to keep, you are already carrying sales tax rates of up 32 per cent on many commonly used family and household items.'The second thing that I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia is, `Under my government, I have given to you and your children the lowest housing interest rates for 30 years.' I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia, ` I have given you a $1 billion family taxation initiative.' I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia that for the first time in decades we have had three budgets in a row where there have been no increases in any of the general rates of taxation. I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia, `We have given you the lowest rates of inflation for more than 30 years.' And I would say to the mothers and fathers of Australia, `In a sea of turmoil in the Asia-Pacific region, we have given you safety, stability and security—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—as far as the management of the affairs of the Australian economy are concerned. I will be very proud indeed to address the mothers and fathers of Australia on my economic record any time you like.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Why don't you wash the babies in detergent?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has asked her question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on the opposition benches will remain silent.36863686Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have the provisions of the Trade Practices Act been effective in discouraging secondary boycotts? Minister, would you inform the House of alternative approaches that have been canvassed for the replacement of these provisions, and what effect would these have on Australian exports?3686Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The Trade Practices Act reforms introduced by this government have seen the introduction of effective sanctions against secondary boycotts. In my view, those new laws have been very important. They have been a significant deterrent to unreasonable industrial action by unions. In recent times we have seen the lowest level of industrial disputes per 1,000 employees in Australia since before World War I.These provisions—I call them the Cheryl clauses—have been very strongly opposed by the Australian Labor Party and by the Maritime Union of Australia. The Maritime Union of Australia has, to all intents and purposes, told the ALP that if the Labor Party is ever returned it requires the Labor Party to abolish, to repeal, to remove those very effective sanctions against secondary boycotts. One of the reasons that the Maritime Union wants to see effective secondary boycott provisions removed is that it will allow it to continue to have a stranglehold on the Australian economy through the monopoly supply of labour on the Australian waterfront.Yesterday there was some reference to the Columbus Canada off the west coast of the United States. On that ship are Australian products destined for export markets in the US and, on the success of that shipment, relies the future prosperity of a lot of Australian businesses. I think that most Australians would be shocked to hear that a member of the federal parliament should say the following—and these are the words as I have them—in respect of that ship:I hope it sinks. I'd sink it.Those were the words of the member for Charlton, who was a former minister in a former Labor government—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. The member for Charlton has a point of order?5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to page 3550—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order, as the honourable member knows full well. The member for Charlton can make an personal explanation—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Speaker, I expect your protection against lies by the minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton will resume his seat.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Name him?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He has an opportunity, as he knows, to make a personal explanation.WI4Mr REITH—Then the member for Charlton, in the adjournment debate last night, speaking on behalf and with the support of the Leader of the Opposition, went on to say this about those Australians who have recently worked for PCS on the Australian waterfront:I say to that worker and to others like him—namely, the PCS workers—that they will wear the foul stench of scabbing in their souls forever—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—True! True!WI4Mr REITH—It continues:Their children and grandchildren will smell the stench and recoil from it.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—I am glad you read it.WI4Mr REITH—He then quoted from an American author—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Jack London.WI4Mr REITH—and endorsed the following remarks, which I think most Australians will find sickening.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—We find you sickening!WI4Mr REITH—These are the words quoted by a senior member of the Labor Party in the adjournment last night:After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad and the vampire he had some awful substance left with which he made a SCAB.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—Australians are entitled to exercise choice as to whether or not they are members of a union. Australians in this country are entitled to exercise a choice. That is a choice for the individual. If people choose not to be a member of the union, it is not appropriate for a member of this parliament, let alone a member of the Labor Party with the endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition, to revile and to use disgusting terms in respect of the choice of ordinary Australians. These people will do anything and say anything to support their mates in the Maritime Union of Australia. They are committed to a policy which would allow the MUA to hold this country to ransom at any particular moment. This Leader of the Opposition has yet to repudiate the disgusting remarks of the member for Charlton. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you aspire to the highest office in the land, then the first thing you have to do is to require some standards of your own frontbench and backbench. I demand of you today that you repudiate the sickening remarks of this person.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition at the moment are creating so much noise that the minister's answer cannot be heard. I advise them that, if they continue in that vein, I will have no alternative but to name them.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance. During his answer the minister then directed a question to me demanding that I repudiate the member for Charlton.WI4Mr REITH—It's a challenge to you.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You directed a question to me and the framework of standing orders does not permit it. But I have made amply clear on numerous occasions that I do not support boycotts on Australians. Mr Speaker, I am also thoroughly aware on that point of order that Mr Brown sought your—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—You could not lead a chook raffle!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect has been warned on a successive number of occasions. I suggest you remain silent.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh, put her out!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. I am talking to the Leader of the Opposition at the moment. The Leader of the Opposition can raise points of order. He is not at liberty to debate during question time any issue, no matter how passionate he might feel about it. He may raise a point of order only.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—But I cannot move to suspend standing orders on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. You may raise a point of order. You may do no more at this stage of the proceedings.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point of order is this, Mr Speaker: is it legitimate when you are aware that Mr Brown has sought an opportunity here—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—to withdraw the remarks he made last night—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and you denied him an opportunity to do it at the earliest point, which was at 2 o'clock.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition would be aware as a long time leader of this House that, under our standing orders, there is a requirement at 2 p.m. on a Tuesday to go straight into questions after prayers. We did so. The minister has the call. The minister has finished his answer.CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Can I draw your attention to the fact that you have now warned the member for Prospect 10 times.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I take note of the—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will respond to that point of order first. I take note of the honourable member's concern. At the same time I think there has been a certain amount of provocation. I think it is necessary we try to ensure that on both sides there is a recognition that it is essential that we all comply with standing orders.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order relates to standing order 52 which says that order shall be maintained by the Speaker and also to standing order 55 which says that `no member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance to interrupt the member'. The honourable member for Page indicated that the acoustics in his part of the chamber are very poor. Because of the breach of order by those opposite, it is impossible for us to hear the proceedings. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to impose standing order 52 and maintain order on the opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I recognise the concern of the honourable member for Fisher. I would point out that, in the passions of election mode, there tends to be a certain amount of disorder on both sides.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent! The honourable member for Page raised a very valid concern. I responded and commented that I have had a great deal of correspondence about noise in this House. If there is to be excess noise, I will have no alternative but to expel members from the service of this place. I call the honourable member for Canberra on a question.36883688McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, in light of the report Taxation reform and the arts prepared for the Australia Council by KPMG and publicly released today, will the minister assure the House that a GST will not apply to entertainment such as families going to the movies or their kids going to rock concerts? Will the minister rule out asking an average Australian family to pay Peter Costello $4 every time they go to the movies?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Again, I put to the opposition that I think you have to look very carefully at the way you are framing these questions. They are technically contrary to our standing orders, I am afraid. I ask the minister representing the minister for communications and the arts to respond, but technically most of these questions are out of order. I call the minister.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the provisions of standing order 147 which says:The Speaker may direct that the language of a question be changed if it seems to the Speaker unbecoming or not in conformity with the standing orders of the House. If, Mr Speaker, you are not of a mind to rule the question out of order, I would ask at least that you request that, pursuant to standing order 147, the opposition rephrase the question so that it comes within the standing orders of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think we are all aware that questions of this sort have been asked by both sides of the House over time. For that reason I am allowing the question. I have drawn attention to the fact that, technically, there are many questions from both sides that are not in accordance with standing orders. The honourable the minister, I am sure, would like to respond to this question.3689Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Such an attractive invitation, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I will say this: the government will study the KPMG report and make its deliberations known in due course. We thank KPMG for the work and effort they have put into that report which is vital for the future development of arts policy.On the issue that the member for Canberra was nearly ruled out of order on, the same answer applies as I have already responded to in the House today. When the government finalises its package, it will be possessed of fairness and equity for Australians in dealing with the need to address taxation reform—something that you had the opportunity to do and failed to do in 13 years.36893689Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister advise the House how the failure to address taxation reform in the land transport sector by the previous government has unfairly hurt regional Australia, particularly in large electorates like Capricornia?3689Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for his question. As the honourable member would be well aware, the costs of land transport, particularly road transport, have a major impact on the cost of living in regional Australia, which our government is vitally interested in. Part of that impost is the current taxation system that the Australian Labor Party wants to protect.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—If you look at your history books, you will find that Labor created the taxation system we have at the moment with the wholesale sales tax and with the fuel excise. In 1993 the Labor Party went to the people of Australia and they promised that there would be no increases in taxes and they also promised tax cuts. Do you remember the l-a-w and the promise that there would be no increases in taxes, which turned into a l-i-e, a lie, in 1993 when you took the wholesale sales taxes from 15 per cent to 22 per cent?DT4CREANMr Crean—Never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Tell us about lies like your road funding promises.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!SU5Mr VAILE—That impacts on every single thing that goes on in regional Australia which includes the commodities that are carried in there to be consumed by people in regional Australia. Every single thing that is manufactured in regional Australia is also transported out by road or by rail and that is impacted upon by the wholesale sales tax system that the Labor Party wants to protect. They increased the wholesale sales taxes in 1993 and they do not want to change it.This is the ridiculous system that they want to maintain. In 1993, they increased the sales tax on trucks for the road transport industry from 15 per cent to 22 per cent. If you go and buy spare parts such as new seat belts for that truck they are exempt because it is a safety item. But if you go and buy brake parts, airbags or lights, they are taxed at 22 per cent. How ridiculous is that system that the new truck is taxed at 22 per cent, and parts that are critical to the safety of that operation are also taxed at 22 per cent. That is the system that the Australian Labor Party wants to protect. The created it. The Australian Labor Party created this system.In 1993, the Australian Labor Party said they would not increase taxes. That promise turned into an l-i-e, a lie, as the member for Charlton was allowed to get away with a while ago. It is the Australian Labor Party that now want to protect this system. They do not want to change it; they want to continue seeing the burdens of an unfair tax system loaded onto regional Australia in the same way as they want to see the unfair burdens of a lack of competition on the Australian waterfront loaded onto regional Australians.DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you going to drop the fuel excise?SU5Mr VAILE—The member for Hotham interjects about fuel excise, Mr Speaker.DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you going to drop it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.SU5Mr VAILE—From 1983 until 1996, the Labor Party saw fuel excise go from 7c a litre to 36c a litre. That is your government. The Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Finance through those years and they took the fuel excise straight up. That is a direct impost on regional Australia. You sit here with confected indignation and talk about what you want to do for regional Australia. There is not one person on the opposition benches that is serious about representing regional Australia. Our government wants to see a fairer taxation system for all regional Australians.36903690Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recall your `never ever' GST discussion on the Clive Robertson program on 19 April 1996 when you said, `Clive, I have to repeat, I mean, everybody asks me about the GST and I said I'm not going to do it. Now, it's like Medicare.'? Does this mean your `never ever' promise on Medicare is as genuine as your `never ever' promise on GST?3690Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Our position is that we will go to the next election with a proposal to reform the Australian taxation system.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Never ever! Never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Unlike the Labor Party that is wedded to an outdated, outmoded indirect taxation system, unlike the Australian Labor Party that is wedded to a personal income taxation system that in this current year will mean that a taxpayer on average weekly earnings will move from a 34 per cent rate at the margin to 43 per cent at the margin. That is the system that the Leader of the Opposition proposes that Australia maintain.DT4CREANMr Crean—Never ever! You don't care about the never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He is also going to maintain an indirect taxation system that produced the increases on household items that I have referred to in earlier questions.Mr Speaker, I say to all honourable members in the House that question time over the last two days has not surprisingly been focused on the issue of taxation. Any person who takes a realistic, objective view of the Australian taxation system will know that, if we really care about the national interest, we cannot go on forever with the present taxation system. If we really care about the competitiveness of Australian industry in a hostile world economic environment, we can no longer tolerate a taxation system that penalises our manufactured exports and that says to the rest of the world, `We're going to try to fight you for the markets of the world with one hand tied behind our backs.'DT4CREANMr Crean—This is good.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You think that is good, do you?DT4CREANMr Crean—I said this is good, you fraud.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has already been warned. I suggest he remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He thinks it is good, apparently, that the Australian manufacturers be forced to compete with the rest of the world with one hand tied behind their backs. Mr Speaker, the coalition is committed to comprehensive taxation reform. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition opens his mouth on taxation, he has got form. They remember the dishonoured 1993 promises, they remember the budget deficit, they remember the fact that fuel excise rose—as my colleague the Minister for Transport and Regional Development said—from 7c a litre to 36c a litre. I have no doubt who they will believe when judgment comes.36913691Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. Has the minister heard reports that negotiations on a Commonwealth State Disability Agreement have stalled? Can the minister update the House on the actual situation?3691Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Many members will be aware that the development of the five-year Commonwealth State Disability Agreement has been under consideration and discussion between the Commonwealth and the states for some considerable time, and I know that the member for Dunkley has taken a particularly keen interest in this agreement, representing the interests of the constituents in his seat and in Victoria.I am pleased to say that yesterday I secured the signature of the last of the states. All states have now signed a new five-year agreement, also the Northern Territory. The ACT have indicated twice in writing to me that they will be doing so, given, of course, that the ACT had an election in the interim period. The outcome is significant, as all members would know, in setting in place a five-year agreement in conjunction with the states which gives certainty to those with disabilities about the level of funding. It has been a fundamental priority of this government and it has certainly been a personal priority for myself as the minister.The funds that will flow over that period of the agreement, the four years for accommodation support, amount to about $1.46 billion. In addition, the Commonwealth, which is responsible for employment and related services, will spend $1.07 billion over that four-year period. That constitutes approximately a five per cent increase on the original agreement amount and is made up of 3.38 per cent growth and an estimated 1.5 per cent indexation, and a supplementation for superannuation costs.We have been, during the course of the negotiations, subject to a range of misinformation, and I am glad to say that has not been echoed broadly in the disability sector. They have been extremely constructive, and I know that many of the representative bodies will be delighted to know that all states have now signed this agreement. Effectively, it means that, if the states meet the same level of increase that is provided for by the Commonwealth, for the first time ever in this country we will have a very marked up-trend in the amount of money that is relayed to the benefit of those people with disabilities.In addition, the announcement in the staying at home package of $15 million for those people who are looking after elderly disabled people will be an additional benefit which will flow through these agreements. It is a very significant agreement and it is a very significant achievement for this government, and I congratulate the Prime Minister.36913691Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it correct that your government's legislation placed a cut-off date of next Tuesday for negotiations with the states over public hospital funding? Is it also correct that, while your health minister is not even in the country between now and that cut-off date, your government is about to introduce a bill to allow you to abandon long-term Medicare agreements with the states and to pay them for one year only? Why is your government deliberately sabotaging the Medicare agreements? Finally, without the Medicare agreements, what is to stop you or the states introducing co-payments for services in public hospitals if you are re-elected?3691Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The assumption underlying the honourable member's question, as usual, is wrong. What the government is doing is to introduce legislation to give effect to the undertaking that I gave after the Premiers rather petulantly walked out of the last Premiers Conference, that is, the offer made by the Commonwealth would be honoured in full. I say again to the people of Australia: we will deliver every last dollar that we promised that we would deliver at the Premiers Conference. The allegations you make about co-payments are wrong. Our policy of opposition to a co-payment stands. It will not be altered. The only party in this place that wanted to introduce a co-payment was the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party wanted to introduce a co-payment and the Australian Labor Party's credentials on that issue ought to come under a lot more scrutiny than the credentials of the coalition.We will honour the promises that we put on the table at the last Premiers Conference. They represent a 15 per cent increase in real terms—15 per cent over the next five years. And what the honourable member is saying is wrong. It is wrong in relation to undermining Medicare. It is wrong in relation to the co-payment and it is wrong to the extent that it implies that we will not honour in full the undertakings that I gave at the Premiers Conference.36923692Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. I ask the minister to inform the House what outcomes were achieved at the recent World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Geneva. How will Australia benefit from those outcomes? What are the likely next steps in international trade negotiations?3692Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—Last Wednesday in Geneva at the second ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation agreement was reached on a declaration which represents a quantum leap forward both in respect of the agricultural sector and the services sector. For the hard-pressed pork and citrus producers, who are now exporting a good proportion of their efforts, it is not going to be an instant magic wand but it is a step in the right direction.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What are you talking about?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We reaffirmed the built-in agenda which was part of the Uruguay Round negotiations and which I would have thought members of the front bench would acknowledge—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—The pork industry, and what else?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We export pork to Russia, in case you did not know.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What, half a kilo?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We have done so last year and this year and those exports are off a small base but expanding. I am proud of the pork industry's efforts to start exporting. You may not be, but I am.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Just be honest with the pork industry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Just be honest with the pork industry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Burke.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—You are telling porkies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—It goes on. Against all odds, the citrus industry is now exporting 50 per cent of its production by dollar value.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—You are telling porkies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am proud of that and so is the coalition government—proud of those having a go at exporting. It is more than you encouraged in either the pork or the citrus industry.I want to say, Mr Speaker, that we did something else. In addition to affirming the built-in agenda, we provided for the preparatory work to commence—something which had been resisted—in September 1998, this year, and ahead of what had previously been contemplated. Again, that is a step in the right direction.I want to add, Mr Speaker, that what we did was in contrast to the white flag brigade from the Labor Party when it was in government with regard to trade negotiations—bilateral, regional and multilateral. Indeed, I remind the House that Senator Button said this about Labor's trade efforts: `Everyone is down there in Foreign Affairs and Trade doing the multilaterals; no-one is doing anything about the bilaterals.' In Geneva, I also took the opportunity to pursue country to country negotiations, bilateral negotiations, with, once again, more enhancement for Australian exporters.I want to make one other point in response to the legitimate question of the member for Mallee. Australia at this time is a fiscal economic oasis in this part of the world. We have a budget surplus; you provided a $10½ billion budget deficit. We have a budget surplus that is helping our exporters. We have a budget surplus which is helping to confer safety, security and stability, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.We are a fiscal economic oasis, but we must safeguard our trading position. It is true that there is no such thing as an international level playing field, and it is also true that, arising out of some of the more recent developments in Asia, there are efforts by nations to cheat with regard to their trade circumstance, legally or otherwise. I highlight that, and I will continue to highlight that.I want to make the point, very bluntly, Mr Speaker, that the playing field is likely to become more lopsided, but we will do all we can to sensibly safeguard the situation of our exporters. So I say again that the government is proud to have created a budget surplus which makes this economy a fiscal economic oasis. We have turned around your $10½ billion deficit. You would have been a disaster for our exporters.36933693Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Which are increasing at a much more rapid rate than—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his question. If he has not a question, I will call the next questioner.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Given the importance of trade to increasing jobs and the impact on job growth, especially in Queensland with the collapse in Asian tourism, will you follow the lead of your Queensland ministerial colleague John Moore, and the Treasurer, and 17 other federal coalition members, by recommending to your party that any One Nation candidate in your electorate goes last on your how to vote card?3693Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I will not accept any lectures from the Leader of the Opposition on this particular matter. The parliament, its members and the nation as a whole will soon enough learn the exactitude of my response on that matter at the appropriate time when our candidates are confirmed in the field.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Show some leadership.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Why not put them last?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—The Minister for Foreign Affairs is putting her last.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Put her last.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You raised the Hanson agenda. Let me, for the first time, say something about it. The member for Oxley is not here again today. I have to belt around the world, but I have still attended more divisions on actual legislation than the member for Oxley has attended in two years.In fact, I happen to have had the figures stored away. In 1996 and 1997—you might like to listen to this—there were 148 divisions on legislation, on actual bills on the floor of this parliament, excluding procedural votes and excluding gags. The member for Oxley missed 100 out of those 148 divisions. She was only present for 48 out of those 148 divisions. Whether you are for or against her particular agenda, her representation is worth about 32c in the dollar.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I ask that leave be given to table the—WI4REITHMr Reith—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is not given. The member for Menzies has the call.36933693Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how the tax system creates disincentives to work?3693Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, there are many things that are wrong with the present Australian taxation system, and I pointed out the weaknesses of the wholesale tax system which Labor embraces ferociously and wants to increase. Also, according to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they want to engage in a bit of broadening. What he said at that doorstop yesterday, which was pointed out by the Acting Treasurer, is indeed illuminating. What he is really saying is that Labor's policy is to collect more money through the indirect taxation system. And is he going to use that to fund reductions in personal income tax?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—He says, `What rubbish!' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that you are going to engage in a bit of base broadening. Base broadening is a euphemism for saying that you are going to increase the level of indirect taxation. You cannot broaden the base without collecting more tax, and that is exactly what you have suggested.Mr Speaker, the member for Menzies asks me about the disincentive for work effects of the existing taxation system. I remind the member for Menzies that in 1954 the average wage earner paid 17½ per cent tax on additional earnings. By 1998-99, a taxpayer on average earnings will move from the 34 per cent to the 43 per cent tax bracket. What that means is that, for every extra dollar you earn at the average wage level, you will pay 43c of that extra dollar in taxation. That is the system the Australian Labor Party wants to maintain.That means that if an Australian worker earns more than $728 a week—and there are many Australian workers who earn that—they will pay tax at a marginal rate of 43 per cent. And, what is more, if you happen to earn $950 a week, you will pay marginal rates of tax at the top rate of tax.The way the present system is going, by the year 2000 more than one-third of all Australian taxpayers will be earning more than $728 a week and will, therefore, without reform, face a marginal rate of tax which is greater than 40 per cent. So, by the year 2000, unless we reform the system, you will have one-third of all Australian taxpayers paying at the margin more than a 40 per cent rate of tax. That is yet another example of the impact on incentives to work of the present Australian taxation system.There is little doubt—as a result of the exchanges in this parliament of the last two days—that, just as the Labor Party is chained to the Maritime Union of Australia, it is also chained to the existing taxation system; just as the Australian Labor Party is chained to a system that produces a lopsided inequitable application of indirect tax, it is also chained to a system that brutally penalises Australian exporters. By contrast, the coalition is committed to reforming the Australian taxation system, to providing Australia with a system that supports Australian exporters, providing the Australian worker with a system that provides an incentive to work and, above all, provides to all Australians a system that is based on equity and fairness which will help contribute to the security, the stability and the safety of the Australian economy.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations369415:38:003694Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I refer to the Sydney Morning Herald editorial which, coincidentally, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) referred to. In the course of that editorial, it is suggested that, in remarks that I made about the Liberal government's enrolment benchmark adjustment when I referred to it as encouraging sectarianism, that referred to the attitudes of particular schools. Any reading of my speech points out that that was not the case. The sectarianism I was referring to, as the speech makes explicitly clear, was the sectarianism that existed before the 1970s where there was a debate between the Catholic education system and the state school system which has been revived by the enrolment benchmark.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was rising on the rules relative to personal explanations, but I might also draw to your attention anybody who rises in this fashion to get your attention. The Leader of the Opposition continues to make a speech, and with great speed, when he knows it is out of order, and I think it is time it was drawn to his attention.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It has been on several occasions.15:40:003695Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Yes, by the foreign minister in question time today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) alleged that, as foreign minister in 1993, I was culpably responsible for issuing Christopher Skase with a new passport. I make four short factual points in reply. Point one: I can find no papers in my personal archives on this matter and I have no specific recollection of the matter ever coming to me from my department for information, advice or decision. I may be wrong in that recollection, but my belief is that the issue was resolved at departmental level in consultation with A-Gs because of the second point I come to.The second point is that I do have a general recollection of discussing the issue with the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, with whom I discussed many aspects of the Skase affair, and getting advice from him—it might have been from a member of my department but I think it was from Michael Lavarch—that, in the context of this case, neither my department nor I had any legally available discretion to refuse to issue the new passport sought in the absence of any arrest warrant being issued.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—So you did discuss it.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I repeat: I have a general recollection of having discussed it with Michael Lavarch and being given the advice because the issue of a passport possibly being issued was a live one all year. If Foreign Affairs had refused to issue the passport, we would have immediately been challenged in the courts and ordered to issue the passport in question.The third factual point is that, despite efforts having been made throughout 1993 to get an arrest warrant issued, that did not occur until January 1994. It certainly was not the case at the time that the new passport was issued in July 1993.The final point I make is this: I note that neither the foreign minister today, nor Senator Vanstone yesterday, have claimed that either I or my department did in fact—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader cannot now argue the case.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—This goes to the question of culpability, Mr Speaker. If you were accused of culpable behaviour, you would want to get it on the record as well. It is the final point I would make.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In the course of a personal explanation, the deputy leader can only respond to matters where he has been personally misrepresented. I am listening very closely at the moment. He seems to be arguing the case.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I simply make the point that it has not been claimed today or yesterday that I did have any legally available discretion that would have survived any scrutiny by the courts. In the absence of any such discretion, no possible question of culpability can arise. The foreign minister's statement should be seen for what it is—a crude and contrived political slur.15:43:003695Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—Yes, I do, on two occasions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—On both occasions I was misrepresented by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). On the first occasion, he referred to an interjection which I made yesterday during question time when the minister was continuing extreme provocation in relation to the question of Columbus Canada , which he said was still subject to a blockade off the west coast of the US. My interjection, as it appears in Hansard , was, `Absolutely! The fight is against the scabs!' as it was and as it continues to be. If anyone wants to know anything about scabs, they can read my speech on the adjournment debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will conclude his personal explanation. He is not arguing the case.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—My concern is—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not interested in your concerns. I will hear your personal explanation.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—My concern is for misrepresentation, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will personally respond.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I am indicating where I was misrepresented by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on two occasions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please do so.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—The first one was the implication by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business that I resile from the interjection that I directed across there. It does not appear in Hansard , but I do not resile from it. What I do resile from is the implication that I had suggested or implied that that particular ship should sink and perhaps imperil seamen's lives. That was certainly not the import of my interjection. I have never wished any physical injury or danger to anyone and I certainly did not in connection with that. Not only that, but I withdraw unreservedly those remarks.The second way in which I have been misrepresented, again by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, was when he said I was in some way supporting a position, in relation to this question, which had been adopted by the Leader of the Oppo sition. I make it perfectly clear that the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly and firmly has said he has not, does not and will not endorse any embargo against Australian ships.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What the Leader of the Opposition does is not your responsibility, as you would know.15:45:003696Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I claim to have been misrepresented by the claim of the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) that I misrepresented him. In support of my claim I quote from an AAP report—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I cannot hear anything at the moment. If members persist in intervening, we will have to suspend proceedings until we can hear the minister. The minister has the call.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—To rebut the misrepresentation, I quote from the AAP report of yesterday marked `Priority high' where it says:But Mr Brown, a junior transport minister in the early 1990s and now a backbencher, called out—Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has just said that he wants to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I am about to tell you that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will you do so?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—He said he wants to rebut—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order? 4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—He said he wants to rebut what the member for Charlton said. That is not a personal explanation and maybe even you understand that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that implication against me.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I do not see how you could have seen any implication because it was not meant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will withdraw that remark.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I said it was not meant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that remark.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that remark.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that implication.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Am I going to get time to do so or are you going to interrupt me all the time?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that implication before I address the point of order.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Will you withdraw that implication?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—If I can get—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are you going to withdraw that remark?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Can I get two words out and I will.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have just got four words out and I have not heard you withdraw. Will you withdraw that remark?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—If you give me a moment, I will.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have now got six words out.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, if you take exception to that, I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you. I call the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What about the point of order? Are you going to rule on the point of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will. With respect to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, he will address—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Sit down and get back in your cell.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will remain silent. The member for Watson raised a point of order with respect to making a personal explanation.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, is the minister going to resume his seat while you are addressing my point of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member would do well to resume his seat, too. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business will respond where he has been personally misrepresented.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, I was misrepresented by the member for Charlton and I table the AAP report.Questions to the Speaker369736973697Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—Mr Speaker, could you tell the House what steps have been taken by the parliament to recognise National Reconciliation Week—which begins tomorrow—and, in particular, how are we to communicate Reconciliation Week to the public?3697Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member who, I know, along with other members of this place, takes a particular interest in this matter.Dr Theophanous interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Calwell might extend a bit of courtesy at times. There are a number of measures which have been taken. I mentioned the displaying of flags, both within the parliament and within the parliamentary precincts. In addition, a plaque commissioned by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1997 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the 1967 Commonwealth referendum on Aborigines is on display outside the theatrette, where a number of ceremonies are taking place today. In addition, a publication has been prepared, in response to a question from the honourable member, on the artworks of indigenous Australians. It is an excellent publication and it will be distributed to all members. I table it for the purpose of the records of this House.36983698Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, on 12 May 1998, I asked you a question about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. You kindly made a statement to the House yesterday and also sent me correspondence on 22 May. I acknowledge that and congratulate you on the protocols you have put in place.I understand, however, that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags that are being flown this week will not be rotated, as occurs with the Australian flag. I ask you, firstly, to consider the preservation of those two flags because they are the first two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags that have been flown adjacent to the chamber. Perhaps they could be displayed in an appropriate place in the vicinity of Parliament House or, indeed, maybe even presented to ATSIC. Secondly, I ask that consideration be given on future occasions, such as in NAIDOC Week and, hopefully, in future reconciliation weeks, to the rotation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags on a daily basis similar to what occurs with the Australian flag, so that we might then be able to present them to local government organisations and local communities to be flown on appropriate occasions.3698Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take note of the second part of the honourable member's question. There are, I gather, some problems with obtaining sufficient quantities of the flag, but I shall examine the process. With respect to the two flags now on display, it would be my intention that they should be flown for the next sitting fortnight—this week and next week. I had thought, as a number of members have asked for the flag, that it would be more appropriate that they be presented by the par liament to ATSIC, and that is my present intention.36983698Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, as you are aware, members can utilise their printing entitlement in the Department of the House of Representatives printing office to have newsletters printed. Could you advise members of the guidelines regarding material that members can have printed and what specifically are not allowed to be printed as newsletters by the printing office.3698Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take on notice the honourable gentleman's question and I will respond to him and to all members in due course.36983698Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, you were concerned today about the form of questions to the House. I draw your attention to the last question asked by the member for Dunkley when he asked the minister to `update the House'. I would have thought that was an inappropriate and certainly incorrect use of language and therefore was out of order.3698Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—If that was so, the honourable gentleman should have raised the question at the appropriate time.36983698Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—My second question relates to three occasions in recent times when there have been purported quotations from members of the chamber to which members have taken exception. Mr Speaker, your response each time has been to say that they had a right, there was a process, subsequently to correct that. It would seem to me that the implication of that interpretation—I would like to put this on notice to you—is that people can falsely represent quotations on behalf of members, knowing them to be wrong, getting them on to the public record, and the only response available to a member in redress is a personal explanation subsequently, which is an entirely different form. I would suggest that that constitutes a serious breach of privilege and a serious weakening of the rights of members in the chamber.3699Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is not for me to resolve dilemmas that the honourable member has with respect to the interpretation of standing orders unless they are raised immediately on the occasion when they occur. There are procedures and practices if you believe there is a breach of members' privileges or a breach of standing orders. In the present instance, it is not customary for questions to the Speaker to be a time to elucidate detail of that sort. I would suggest that if the honourable gentleman has concerns he raises them at the time that the particular matter arises.3699Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, the three occasions involved two from the member for Sydney and one from the member for Charlton. They were raised with you and that was your ruling. What I am seeking from you is a clarification of your ruling, because the interpretation is that people can be misquoted openly in the chamber with impunity, having taken exception to it at the time.3699Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—You would know as well as anybody that there have been many occasions when individuals have felt that remarks made by others in this place are not accurate. There are appropriate procedures for personal explanations. They should be followed.36993699Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Mr Speaker, on becoming a member of this House, I read closely the standing orders of the House. I have to say that I am a little confused at the present time. I am wondering what your ruling is not just on the framing of questions but also on speeches before questions and members who have been called to order, and the number of times people are named in this House before they lose the privileges of the House. Could you contemplate that and report back at a later date?3699Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I know that the honourable member for Page is aware of a procedure in the New South Wales parliament where a person is warned twice and the third time they are automatically suspended. It is a procedure in practice that might have some advantage in this place the way some people are behaving at the moment. At the same time, I do understand that we are in a run-down to an election and a certain amount of heat, passion and enthusiasm are being generated. There are occasions in this place when it is impossible to hear. I suggest, for the benefit of all members, that it would be to their advantage if there was a little more silence while members are putting questions, making statements or responding to questions in this House.Business369915:56:003699Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I have two matters. The first is to say something about the House arrangements and the second matter is to table papers as is usual.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Put on your balaclava.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will remain silent.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will start reading your speeches on the adjournment again if you are not careful.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I made a few remarks a while ago about silence in this House. The next person who intervenes, I suggest, will be absenting himself or herself from the chamber for a while.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The arrangements are expected to be as follows. There have been discussions between the government and the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) regarding the handling of bills and government business this week and next week. There are a very significant number of bills which need to be dealt with by the House due to various time limits, scheduling and the like. What we are attempting to do—Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the member for Lyons to leave the House under standing order 304A. I told you that the next person to intervene would be required to leave. The honourable member will leave the House for one hour.The honourable member for Lyons thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We are attempting to ensure that we have reasonable opportunity for people to speak on all the matters but at the same time deal with the matters before us. To that end, whilst we do not as yet have an agreement about all the matters, I think it would be fair to say that we have in mind a general in-principle framework for this week and next week. I hope we will be able to come to an agreement about the details of that, but I can say to the House that, as part of this cooperative effort to manage the affairs of the House, it is intended that the House—Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will leave the House under standing order 304A for an hour.The honourable member for Jagajaga thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—On this understanding, it is therefore intended that the House will sit tomorrow night, Wednesday night, but I think I can safely say it has been agreed with the Manager of Opposition Business—and I am sure the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) as well—that as we sit tomorrow night there will be no divisions or quorums so that everybody can have their opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills.In return for that magnanimous gesture—I would hope that we would have the support of the Independents for this sensible measure—it is proposed to have some discussion in the House on the appropriation bills. It will be limited to Thursday morning. The appropriation bills will then be sent off to the Main Committee. It will allow us to have more debate on the appropriation bills in the House than we had last year but not as much as the year before. I think that is a fair compromise.We have provided to the Manager of Opposition Business a long list of bills which we would like through next week. He has responded by saying, `There's no way known that that lot can get through,' so we will attempt to cull that list on a reasonable basis to obviate the necessity to have a whole lot of time wasting divisions, gag motions and guillotines, which I can assure you we will have if we do not come to a sensible arrangement.That is where things are at. It does mean that we will sit tomorrow night. I presume—we have not as yet discussed this—there is a possibility that we will do the same next week to make sure that people have an opportunity to speak on bills, but we have not as yet had a chance to speak on those issues.16:00:003700Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I wish to respond to the Leader of the House (Mr Reith). He has described the arrangement which was arrived at, but there is still some uncertainty about what that leaves us with next week. I make the point that what is proposed on the government's list after the appropriation bills is 21 bills in total and government business in a full sitting week allows for only 22 hours of debate. It is clearly beyond the realms of any possibility that 21 bills can be debated in 22 or 23 hours, depending on what is residual from Thursday.I suggest to the minister here, as I have over the phone, that he needs to do a fair bit of culling. He needs to take some particular note of where those bills that are left are contentious—and some are—because clearly some greater time for debate is going to be required in relation to them than others about which we might be able to get an agreement. In the absence of having yet got that list culled down, we are not in a position to indicate further agreement. But I am pleased to note that the Leader is offering the possibility of sitting on the Wednesday night. Let us see the list, and let us have some genuine discussion on it.Documents37003700Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report, May 1998—Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas. Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—ANL Limited—Report for 1996-97.Financial Institutions and Public Administration—Standing Committee—Reports—Cultivating competition: Inquiry into aspects of the National Competition Policy reform package—Revised government response.Inquiry into ANAO audit report No. 6 of 1996-97 on Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort—Government response.Treaties—Bilateral with national interest analysis —Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community.Multilateral with national interest analysis —Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, done at Oslo on 18 September 1997.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—3rd Report—Two international agreements on tuna—Government response.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report, May 1998—Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Miscellaneous370116:01:003701Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek leave to move a motion concerning Sorry Day in the terms that we have discussed with the government.WI4REITHMr Reith—The government agrees to consent to the application for leave on the basis of the discussions that have proceeded between both sides. The member for Bass will respond for the government in due course. There will be a motion from the Leader of the Opposition and there will be an amendment motion from the government. It is intended that there will be two speakers a side in the normal way vis a vis a matter of public importance.WI4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I move:That:Members of this House, on the occasion of Australia's first Sorry Day, place on record their concern for the policies enforced by earlier governments that separated Aboriginal children from their parents, producing a fundamental denial of their human rights and causing untold human suffering. Notwithstanding that in some instance these policies were well motivated they nevertheless had the effect of separating children from their parents and deprived them of their right to be reared within their own families, denying them a knowledge of their culture and traditions.For that, we Members of this Parliament apologise and express the deepest regret for the pain and suffering caused to our fellow Aboriginal citizens. We apologise for the mistakes of the past, believing such an apology is the first step to effective reconciliation.We also place on record our indebtedness to Sir Ronald Wilson and the members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission whose painstaking work in their report brought this evidence before the Parliament and the Australian people, and in so doing provided this nation with the opportunity of rectifying past wrongs and building a positive relationship amongst all Australian citizens.As the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) indicated, the government will move an amendment later to that motion, and the way in which it moves that amendment will supplant the motion. I think that is unfortunate. If it were to move as an amendment an addendum to the motion, even though it is full of self-congratulation, which we would not necessarily consider justified, we would accept it and we would have been able to have as an addendum to this motion a unanimous resolution from this House. It is a pity that that will not occur.The motion that we have proposed has been carefully crafted. It has been carefully crafted to take into account the sorts of concerns that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has portrayed—concerns, of course, which in terms of their legal content and argument we do not accept and which are not consistent with advice that we had at the time when these were matters of consideration before us. Certainly they are legal considerations which have not concerned the conservative premiers of most of the states of this country who have allowed motions of substance to go forward in relation to an apology and atonement for past wrongs done to the Aboriginal people which were exposed in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report.Nevertheless, we removed from our motion anything that could be inferred as accepting a sense of legal responsibility that might in some way cause occasion for government lawyers to be concerned when these matters go to court. We also removed from our motion an obligation on all members of parliament, and the parliament as a whole, to offer an apology. We made a sincere effort to put a motion in the context that I would have thought was the minimum acceptable position for the government or anyone else. As I said, we are even prepared to accept the government's self-congratulatory amendment as an addendum to the proposition that we have put forward in our efforts to ensure that something comes out of this House that actually reflects the level of concern which I know members on both sides of this House feel. It would have been of a piece, I would say, Mr Speaker, with the excellent work that you yourself have done over the course of this week to ensure that appropriate opportunities are provided both to recognise the importance of reconciliation and to allow within the precincts of this parliament various forums in which Sorry Day can be appropriately reflected upon by both members of parliament and the public generally. It is a shame that your good effort and our, I might say, liberality have not been recognised in the final instance by the government in that our motion and the government's as an addendum will not now be the motions that are ultimately passed by this parliament.Because there has been a degree of criticism of this and a degree of concern in the community, I note the anxiousness of those who have involved themselves in the Sorry Day process to put forward the basis on which they are approaching this issue in the community as not being about individual guilt or the apportionment of blame. Whatever might have been in that report, there is an anxiousness in their community to move the issue on from the point reached when the report was first put in place.They are anxious to have us move forward together as a nation, starting from an honest and open appraisal of our history. Any honest and accurate history of relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians reveals events, attitudes, actions and policies that should be the cause of shared regret, shared sorrow and a common purpose in seeing that such things are not perpetuated or repeated. That same history, with its consistent thread of dispossession, destruction of indigenous culture and heritage, and the deliberate fracture of indigenous families, should inform and illuminate our understanding of present day despair and social dysfunction in our indigenous communities.We cannot frame better policies if we fail to address the underlying fallacies and prejudices of past policies, whether or not anyone in this chamber—and virtually no-one is—is responsible for any of them. It is a cop-out to say that we cannot or should not evaluate our past policies or actions according to contemporary values and attitudes. The fact is that virtually every evil of public policy and administrative action directed towards indigenous Australians was the subject of informed and widespread contemporary criticism.The Roth Royal Commission in Western Australia in 1905 provided one of the first systematic critiques and was followed by, among others, the Finnerty report of 1908 and the 1935 Moseley report. Those reports challenged the sorts of policies that produced ultimately the report which we refer to in the motion. The cautionary point for every legislature today is that every aspect of past policies for which we now express regret was framed in the context of contemporary debate that clearly showed that it was widely criticised at the time. Perhaps those legislators were content to march forward safely with majority public opinion rather than accept informed but less popular advice.It is broadly accepted that the practice of removing indigenous children from their families continued until recent times—recent enough to encompass the early careers in public life of some who are still in this place. For many people this can only be dealt with with any degree of comfort by consigning mistakes to some ill-defined past.One guarantee that mistakes will be repeated is to accept comforting myths. In 1949, we ratified UN conventions that dealt precisely with the forcible transfer of children from one group to another and dealt precisely with imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. So these policies were continued for a lengthy period of time against a background of that convention which Australia was actively engaged in designing but which, nevertheless, governments of the day chose to ignore them. Public policy across the nation proceeded either in ignorance or defiance of that convention for the best part of a generation after its ratification.It is equally dangerous policy for policy makers to comfort themselves with the myth that, even when a policy was not done for the good of separated children, the net effect was itself good. If we go beyond incidental anecdotes to scientific research on this question, the myth is very quickly disposed of. Recent studies show that a comparison of educational attainment, income level and employment status between indigenous Australians separated from their families and those who were not demonstrates consistently better outcomes for those who stayed with their families. This is scientific research, not anecdotal evidence.Sadly, the statistics go in the other direction when we look at the negative outcomes. One of the findings of the inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody—a finding that was a key motivation for the stolen children report—was that those who had been separated from their families were overrepresented amongst deaths in custody. It is not surprising that individuals denied parental and family love and support, education in their first language and who were separated from their own culture would suffer social and psychological problems in later life. The fact that many of them also suffered systematic physical, mental and sexual abuse was a dominant influence in their personal development, their ability to form relationships and their capacity to function in a society often hostile or indifferent to them. That is another point I would make about that excellent report that Sir Ronald Wilson brought down and which our motion acknowledges.Unquestionably, in the Australian community there are many families who looked after Aboriginal children in an absolutely impeccable fashion. But that report also demonstrated that there are many instances, either in relation directly to families or more generally in relation to institutions, where what was experienced by Aboriginal children was criminal—criminal in the context of the times, not criminal by some form of hindsight. It has never been a matter supported by the law in this country that you should be permitted to rape or enslave people. That has never been sanctioned by Australian law at any point of time in our history, yet repeated instances of that are pointed to in that Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report.It has never been a matter sanctioned by the law that a position of authority should be used to permit sexual or other forms of abuse—never has that been sanctioned by the law in this nation at any point of time in our history—yet the report is replete with instances of where that occurred. Of course, in that regard, as we have in melancholy fashion occasion to know, not only Aboriginal children but other children in the care of the state or other institutions have experienced a similar method of treatment. That is similarly illegal and their experiences are now the subject of inquiry, compensation and a whole range of other activities in terms of counselling to deal with the problems that they have confronted.But the difference between the Aboriginal community and the other sections of the community that have experienced this is that, in the case of the Aboriginal community, there was a pattern of government decision which produced the set of circumstances in a way that uniquely applied to the race. So what may have been in other areas of the community haphazard instances of abuse in the case of the Aboriginal community started out from a fundamental point that a policy needed to be pursued towards the Aboriginal community in a manner which would place them at a degree of risk.On this, our first Sorry Day, those who cannot bring themselves to apologise for past wrongs should at least be able to express sorrow and empathy with such widely documented personal and family tragedy. I have given up trying to get an apology out of the Prime Minister on these matters. It is not possible to get it. In one sense, of course, if you do not actually mean an apology, it is not worth making it. At the end of the day, if you do not actually mean it—and that does not just apply to the Prime Minister, it applies to anyone else—it is not worth making.We all have to live in this community. We all have to live with the consequences of actions. We all want a united community. At least there is room in the hearts of all of us to express sorrow to and empathise with those who have experienced the experiences of those Aboriginal families who were separated in the way in which that report deals with.Policy makers who fear history, who are unable to honestly evaluate what went wrong and why it went wrong, I am afraid to say, are doomed to repeat it. One commentator said today that the expenditure measures the Prime Minister is about to make are better and more useful than any apology. I beg to differ.While any clawback of the massive cuts the government has visited upon programs for indigenous Australians is welcome, it is a mistake to identify the problems of indigenous communities as being primarily or exclusively defined in terms of material poverty. Policies that fail to appreciate and address the personal and social dysfunction that has flowed from past and present injustices are policies that will not succeed. Just as policy makers of other generations were wrong in their paternalistic conviction that things needed to be done to or for indigenous Australians for their own good, so we will fail today if our policies are ill-informed and enacted for rather than with indigenous Australians.In our sorrow today for indigenous Australians, let us also mourn our common loss. Let us acknowledge that we are all the poorer for the generations of neglect and denial—the denial of opportunities that has robbed us of more Michael Dodsons, more Cathy Freemans, more Lois O'Donoghues, more Harold Blairs—and I could go on with a list of distinguished Australians.Ignorance blinded us until only recently to the magnificence and richness of indigenous art, dance, song and stories, and prejudice determined that desecration and suppression rather than celebration were the hallmarks of many responses to so much that is rich, strong and spiritually uplifting. It is in the interests of reconciliation, a more mature national identity and sound public policies that members of this parliament open their eyes, their ears and their hearts. The motion that we have moved gives them an opportunity to open their eyes, their ears and their hearts.I have, on several occasions—once in this place—apologised for the Labor Party's role in this sorry tale. I offer that apology again here today. But I acknowledge that it is now incumbent upon the Labor Party, at the state and federal levels, when we were responsible for those activities, to now also bear the responsibility to see that the consequences of them are cured. Important though these questions are, the curing of that goes well beyond the material dealing with the problem, the issues of expenditure. They go to the attitude that is created in the community. Are we going to be a community that exploits the opportunity for division, exploits the opportunity for difference, or are we going to be a community that uses the value of unity?We may judge ourselves one way, but others will judge us a different way. We may judge past policies as something that we cannot come to grips with or not be obliged to come to grips with. Others will judge us differently. Others are capable of being inspired by us or making us a cause. If we do not comprehend in the process that the deculturalisation of a large number of members of our Aboriginal community and the acceptance of that was what underpinned the wrong, if we do not understand that, we cannot really come to grips with why native title is so important to the Aboriginal community. If we cannot understand that a sense of loss of culture, a sense of loss of personal sovereignty, fundamentally underlies much of the dysfunction that exists in large elements of the Aboriginal community, we cannot understand the necessity for policies which apply a cultural underpinning to the life that is led by the Aboriginal community. It will make us indifferent to the outcomes in so many critical areas of public policy and will doom us to repeat the errors of the past.I do not want to canvass here the grounds that have underpinned the debate between us on both sides of the House of that Wik legislation. I do not want to canvass the reasons why there needs to be incorporated in any solution to it a right to negotiate. We are going to have plenty of opportunity to do that, unfortunately, in the course of the next few months. But my concern is that there is a thorough comprehension in the parliament and in the community of what underpins a person's sense of cultural confidence or what underpins, in particular, the Aboriginal community's sense of cultural confidence.We will never be able to overcome that family dysfunction, we will never be able to overcome that Aboriginal dysfunction, unless there is recognised by the laws of this nation a complete and comprehensive appreciation of the culture and the nature of the indigenous people who are here before us and have so recently had the rights that are attached to that recognised by the highest court in our land.CH4HOLDINGMr Holding—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:23:003705Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "this House:(1) recognises the need for the legislative and other powers of the Commonwealth to be used to address the profound economic and social disadvantage continuing to be suffered by indigenous Australians—with specific emphasis on health, housing, education and employment;(2) notes that this Government is spending almost $1.9 billion in 1998-99 on indigenous specific programmes particularly targeted at these priority areas;(3) supports the reconciliation process as being important to all Australians and recognises the need to acknowledge past injustices, and emphasises the value of a cooperative effort to build a better future for all Australians; and(4) notes this Government's commitment to addressing the recommendations of the Bringing them home report through a $63m package of initiatives to assist in family reunion.I appreciate that the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was delivered with sincerity and I think many of us in this country would find ourselves in broad agreement with the sentiments he expressed today. I might say that they were expressed eloquently.I have to say that I find myself in an interesting position today. The usual representative for these matters is not here and this is the first occasion that I have had to speak on Aboriginal affairs in this place for nearly 10 years. I was at one stage the shadow minister for this area and listening to this debate made me cast my mind back. This is a day which does lead to personal reflection on these issues, so I will take this opportunity presented to me to express some personal views, which I think is appropriate in this particular debate.When I was the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs in the late 1980s, we had a major debate in this country about the establishment of the ATSIC legislation. The debates then, as they are now, were partisan in part but there was, as I think there is now, a fundamental commitment to wanting to address in a very practical way the needs of indigenous Australians. That is the intent of the motion that we have moved today as a substitution. Our motion looks at the practical ways in which we can assist indigenous Australians.The issues that I faced then were always a matter of budget, as they are now, but it was always an issue of how you got the money to the people who needed it most. That indeed was a challenge for the last government, as it is for this government. Whilst I believe that, broadly, in this place and in the community we share very similar sentiments about the need to address disadvantages—which has been demonstrated by both sides of politics through many reports—there was a specific report that highlighted this issue and led to the motion by the Leader of the Opposition today. That was Sir Ronald Wilson's report, Bringing them home. I did not have the opportunity to bring my own copy of this report, which I had annotated, into the chamber today.Being the minister in this government responsible for families and also children—and that covers all families and all children—when I received this report I was struck by its front page and the extract which had particular meaning and resonance to me. The very first quotation—and I am going to read it to the House, and it is lengthy—relates to an area which, by coincidence, is in my electorate. I know the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) will appreciate this point, as will the member for Braddon (Mr Miles). The area is Cape Barren Island.The state of Tasmania has a significant history in relation to Aboriginal issues, and I think it would be universally agreed that most of it is an appalling one. The Bringing them home report starts with a quotation from a submission made by one of eight siblings who were removed from their families and fostered separately. It is a particularly poignant quotation and reads as follows:So the next thing I remember was that they took us from there and we went to the hospital and I kept asking—because the children were screaming and the little brothers and sisters were just babies of course, and I couldn't move, they were all around me, around my neck and legs, yelling and screaming. I was all upset and I didn't know what to do and I didn't know where we were going. I just thought: well, they're police, they must know what they're doing. I suppose I've got to go with them, they're taking me to see Mum. You know this is what I honestly thought. They kept us in hospital for three days and I kept asking, `When are we going to see Mum?' And no-one told us at this time. And I think on the third or fourth day they piled us in the car and I said, `Where are we going?' And they said, `We are going to see your mother'. But then we turned left to go to the airport and I got a bit panicky about where we were going . . . They got hold of me, you know what I mean, and I got a little baby in my arms and they put us on the plane. And they still told us we were going to see Mum. So I thought she must be wherever they're taking us.Of course, that was not the case. When I read the elements of the Bringing them home report, I reflected on the deaths in custody reports that I read as shadow minister, and the Leader of the Opposition referred to them. Honourable members would remember that, when those reports came out, there were sequential reports and small volumes. I read many of those at the time and was struck also by the fact that, when you had a separation early in the life of the child, the increase in the incidence of difficulties faced later—whether it be by way of incarceration or self-mutilation, and many of the reports were graphic and certainly extremely disturbing—was clearly apparent.What I want to do is paint the picture. I do not think there is a person in Australia who would not regret what has happened in this country in the past. Indeed, we saw that as a nation we ignored the 1949 convention for over a generation. But what we are discussing today is what we do about these issues in a practical sense. So I would hope that the parliament and the nation are not going to divide on semantic arguments but accept the spirit of what is being said here today. The view that I want to articulate is that our future actions must be illuminated by the history that we know. If we can all take account of that history and look positively for practical ways to assist indigenous Australians, I think that indigenous Australians and all of us, both now and in the future, will be better for that endeavour.The National Sorry Day was a recommendation from the Bringing them home report. The day has been privately organised, and we say thank you to those who have been involved. It is not a government initiative, and participation is a matter for individuals. There is no doubt, however, that some people are uncomfortable with the concept of a sorry day or have trouble relating to it. It would be a pity if people were turned away from Reconciliation Week because of that. Reconciliation Week is very strongly supported by the government.Both the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and my colleague Dr Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—and, I might say, a very compassionate and understanding individual who is universally acclaimed for the work he is doing in this area of difficult public policy—have expressed their personal regret over the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the past. Indeed, I have done so, and do so again today. If other Australians want to express their regrets for those actions by signing sorry books, then that is clearly a matter for those individuals.As I say, we want to take practical steps. When I was the shadow minister in the late 1980s, we sought ways to take practical steps. We still seek ways to take practical steps, and each Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs will take steps to ensure that there are practical outcomes. The response by the government to the Bringing them home report was to make very substantial funds available to help those who have been affected to trace their families. If, the centrepiece of being is an attachment to family, as I think it is, and if you have been taken from your family—like that young child from Cape Barren Island in the middle of Bass Strait, as isolated an area as any in our nation—and you believe you want assistance to trace your family, then we as a nation should provide it, and we have done so. We will provide counselling, as we are doing at the present time, for those who need support. That is a practical step. It is a sensible step and one on which the government enjoys congratulations from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We have also wanted to substantially focus on the issue of health. I know that, as health minister, my colleague Dr Wooldridge, who succeeded me as shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, established an indigenous health unit in his department when he had the opportunity on coming to government. I know that the former minister for health, who was here a moment ago, would echo the need for that. We want the unit to focus on the need to improve health outcomes in Aboriginal communities. We have provided an extra $73 million over the next three years.Dr Herron has taken some innovative steps. Something we have not done before is engage the Army to assist in remote areas to improve such basic things as water. These are the things that I think we need to recognise as having to be done. In fact, they are being done. We want to tackle those key issues. They are not matters that you need to keep talking about; they are matters that require action. Too often in the past we have talked too much and we have not done enough. So I come back to my fundamental point: in our future and current actions we need to be illuminated by the history that we now know that has been brought to our attention by the deaths in custody report and the Bringing them home report.On the issue of reconciliation, I believe the government has clearly demonstrated that it strongly supports Reconciliation Week and the process of reconciliation. Indeed, the announcement by the Speaker, before the commencement of this debate, is to be commended. We believe that there are basically three essential matters that need to considered. There needs to be a mutual acceptance of the importance of working together and ensuring that our differences do not prevent us from sharing equality and a common future. I think we can all agree with that.Second, there needs to be an honest and realistic acknowledgment of the injustices of the past. I am sure each of us can provide anecdotal examples from our own reading, from our own representations from constituents, and from other knowledge, of how we can address those injustices of the past. Indeed, the churches, who played a very central role, have recognised that they have a key moral role to play in dealing with the future needs of indigenous Australians.Third, there needs to be a shared commitment to overcoming indigenous disadvantage and providing equality of opportunity for all Australians. They are the three points that must lead us forward in the reconciliation debate. They must lead to justice and equity for all indigenous Australians, wherever they might be. As I travelled the length and breadth of Australia in the late 1980s, I certainly found that I was personally enriched by viewing the diversity of culture that exists from the Torres Strait to Elcho Island, Western Australia, South Australia, and my own state of Tasmania.I am proud to say that this government has taken some practical steps. And that is what we seek to illustrate today by way of this amendment. We recognise the centrality of land to Aboriginal culture, and we are dealing with those issues. We have a special unit for health. We are dealing with the need for employment opportunities. We are dealing with the problem of disproportionate incarceration, particularly of young Aboriginal males in custody. All of these issues can be seen to have taken a marked move forward. I would hope that all in this chamber would recognise those moves for what they are. It is progress. It is what is needed for indigenous Australians. If we can unite on one thing today, we should unite on a view of the need to illuminate policies for now and for the future by what we know of the past. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. I am personally sorry for what has happened, but we as a nation must go forward. (Time expired)16:38:003708Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith), who is at the table and who has just finished an important speech on behalf of the government, finished on the basis of saying that he was sorry for what occurred. If one looks at the motion moved by the government, one can say that there is nothing there which does not live quite comfortably with the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). I accept the fact that the minister, who in no way is responsible for any of these events that we are talking about, does feel sorry. I accept and believe that many of the members of the government would have no problem about expressing their sense of sorrow. I take it one stage further, Minister. I would say on this issue that if we as a parliament are going to say anything of importance to our indigenous people, we should say it with one voice. There is nothing in the government's amendment which does not live comfortably with what has been put by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe it is in the interests of our indigenous people and it is in the interests of this parliament to speak clearly on this issue with a united voice, and we start by saying sorry. We often forget that when the First Fleet arrived in Australia every tree, every rock and every piece of bush was owned. It was part of an ongoing civilisation, a culture with a set of spiritual beliefs which were related to the land. If one makes a world comparison, one can say that those who settled this country were probably less brutal than those in other parts of the world in dealing with our indigenous people. But what we are dealing with here is a set of government decisions which not only got it wrong but also, in getting it wrong, has affected people who are still living in our community in a very real way. Let me quote from one Aboriginal mother from the evidence she gave to the commission as a result of being stolen. We continually hear in the parliament the emphasis that we as a parliament and the government as a government put on family values. What occurred in this case was that the concept of family was totally destroyed. I ask the mothers in this parliament how they would have felt if a police van arrived and their children were being taken on a picnic, or with any excuse, without the force of the law, taken illegally and were not to be seen again. That is what happened time and time again. How do we redress this wrong, because what is the effect? Let us look at just one piece of evidence given by an Aboriginal woman to the commission. She said:That's another thing that we find hard is giving our children love. Because we never had it. So we don't know how to tell our kids that we love them. All we do is protect them. I can't even cuddle my kids `cause I never ever got cuddled. The only time was when I was getting raped and that's not what you'd call a cuddle, is it?Do we just say, `We're going to fix that up. We're going to throw lots of money at it'? Compare the position that has been taken in this House today by the government with that which has been taken by the churches.Many of the churches were deeply involved in the administration of this policy and many of them were involved in the abuse of Aboriginal people. Do the bishops and the leaders of the churches walk away and say, `Oh, well, we've got to get some money and fix this up'? They do not. That should be the first thing they understand. For those people who are of a religious belief in this parliament, part of the great Christian tradition of at least one major church is that before you can get forgiven you have to confess your wrongs. These were not the wrongs of this government. They were not the wrongs of our government, but we got it wrong. Aboriginal citizens right throughout Australia are living with this on a daily basis. It is not so hard. An apology is not so hard. I was confronted with that in a reconciliation meeting in my own electorate. As a result of reading this report, I realised that when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs one of the things I had not done as effectively as I would have wanted was that I did not give enough funding to an organisation called Link Up. If I had the knowledge that is contained in this report, I would have seen that they got a lot more money. I felt the need to publicly, in my own electorate, in the presence of Aboriginal people, get up and say, `Look, I apologise. I'm sorry.' If I knew then as minister what I know now, I would have directed a lot more resources to this group.What was the response of the Aboriginal spokesman that followed me? Was it to say, `Hah, hah, see, you got it wrong'? No, he got up and said to us, `We thank you for the apology but we also thank you for all the things that you got right.'I would like the minister to think about that. We are in the situation where there are divisions within the Liberal Party on this issue. The state Liberal governments have had no difficulty in coming forward with apologies. What problem bedevils the Prime Minister? I suspect that, if we were crossing the chamber and he accidentally bumped into me, he would have no problem in saying sorry. What is the hang-up when you know that there are Aboriginal people living now who are totally dislocated in terms of their family and who continue to suffer, and when we as a parliament cannot bring ourselves to say, `We regret that these things have occurred and we are sorry they ever happened'? The minister virtually said he is sorry. He does not have a problem. So where is the problem? Is it with the Prime Minister? If it is, let him tell us why it is so.We have had a fairly divisive and exciting day in this chamber today. But this is one issue where we as members of parliament can speak with one voice. We should begin by saying, `We are sorry for a policy which denied Aboriginal citizens their human rights, which dislocated families and which was based on current racist concepts at the time.' The theory was very simple—everybody knew it—Aboriginal people were going to die out. If they are going to die out, what do you do? You grab the kids and you make them into little white people.I have a friend in the Northern Territory, a distinguished Aboriginal artist, who is of light skin. He can tell you in detail how, when the police van came round, his mother kept a tin of nugget that she would bring out and put on his face. He was then thrown under a pile of blankets and told not to move. I have never met an Aboriginal person who has not made an effort to find their family. I know of a distinguished Aboriginal woman who has achieved great academic distinction, and she tried to find her family. But what happens to an Aboriginal woman when her kids are taken from her? What would happen to any of the women in this parliament if their kids were taken from them never to be seen again? When this Aboriginal woman met her mother, her mother had become a hopeless alcoholic. How do you rejoin the bonds that have been snapped and broken?How do we as members of the parliament—we have got kids of our own—not embrace the standards that have been taken by Christian and other religious leaders? We begin by saying, `Look, we are sorry it happened. We profoundly regret it,' and then we get on with it. Unless the government can give us some explanation of that—I do not believe individual government members and I do not believe this minister have any great difficulty with our motion—let us for once in the lifetime of this government get it right; let us add your amendment to our motion.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—As an addendum.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—As an addendum. Let us speak to our indigenous people on the basis that this parliament is united in providing not only money but also a view of them—their culture and their spiritual beliefs—that reinforces the family values which are so often talked about in this place. What does it cost? It does not cost the government anything, and it will bring some credit to the government in an election year.But, more importantly, it will bring some credit to this parliament when we as a continuum government start by saying to our indigenous Australians, `We profoundly regret what happened.' This government has no problem because it was not involved. Our government has had no problem. But what we are saying is that, when a government gets it wrong in the history and in the continuum of government processes, it is up to us as members of the national parliament to give a lead by saying, `We are sorry that this ever occurred. It shouldn't have. We're going to get it right.' We start by saying, `Sorry, it shouldn't have happened,' and then we move on. The process has then begun of bringing our indigenous people more firmly into the bonds of our broader community so that their contribution to the future of this country will be secure.Make no mistake about it, the indigenous people's relationship with their land, their spiritual beliefs and the way they relate to each other provide very important aspects of our multicultural society. If we want to talk about a multicultural society—and we always do—let us now start focusing on the rights of our indigenous Australian people and on bringing them through these processes. We do that by saying, `We are sorry. We are going to fix it up.' It is not a question of throwing money at the indigenous people. Any minister for Aboriginal affairs will tell you of the complexities of this portfolio. I have defended this minister on more than one occasion, because any minister has to be given a go. But the time has come when this parliament should speak with one voice and when we should unite around both these proposals rather than, in an election year, turn this aspect of the matter into yet another divisive political debate.16:52:003710Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—First, in a personal sense, may I say that of course I very much regret what has occurred. The nature of this debate, essentially, has been constrained, and this is welcome in an area of great difficulty and complexity. The history of this country led to a situation in which our first migrants—or original inhabitants—were left very marginalised in a community that expected an assimilationist approach. It was an approach that has occasioned a great deal of difficulty.The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), in his comments, wanted to make it appear as if this was a profoundly different issue to children being removed from parents. I do not wish to make it a debating point, save to say that I think there are, in our history, numbers of situations in which, for cultural reasons and for other reasons, children have been removed from parents and placed in institutional care. As a society, we still have to grapple with many of those questions. There are organisations in my own state that are particularly anxious about the situation of young people who have been placed in institutional care and subjected to abuse. There is very much an awareness of these issues emerging today.Equally, in the portfolio area for which I have responsibility, we fund an organisation that deals with young people who were removed from family situations. Many of these young people believed they were orphans but, as we now find out, this may not have been the case. Well-meaning organisations supported these actions, believing they were providing appropriate care and support. These young people were given admission under migration programs supported by governments over a long period of time. We look back on this and we say that if we were to judge it by today's standards and what we now know, we would have treated it very differently.The outcome of policies and programs that were pursued by our forebears has had quite a significant impact upon this nation but a far greater impact upon the people concerned and their descendants. It is well known that Aboriginals suffer very significant disadvantage within our community. That is the reason why we have so many programs that are trying to address what we recognise as that significant disadvantage. These programs are not new. Programs have been developed for as long as I have been in public life. I served on Aboriginal affairs committees where we agonised about the way in which those programs would be implemented and the extent to which they would be successful. We saw a number of approaches which people suggested at different times would have an impact. I can remember moving to the situation of giving Aboriginals the right of self-determination and self-management in the way moneys were spent on their behalf. That has developed to its greatest extent now, where most of the moneys are handed over to the Aboriginal managed and controlled organisation, ATSIC.We have seen an emphasis upon land rights—first recognised in the Northern Territory—in legislation put through by the Liberal government of the 1970s under Malcolm Fraser. There was an expectation that with land rights the situation would change remarkably. Now we see the emphasis is on apology and reconciliation. People generously want to support an approach which involves reconciliation. The government also puts a great deal of emphasis upon it. It does so in the context of mutual acceptance of the importance of working together to ensure that differences do not prevent us from sharing equally in a common future for this nation.There needs to be an honest and realistic acknowledgment of injustices of the past. There needs to be a shared commitment to overcoming indigenous disadvantage and providing equality of opportunity for all Australians. It is that socioeconomic disadvantage suffered by our indigenous Australians that the government believes is its key priority. We target expenditure to identified areas of greatest need—health, housing, education and employment. If you go through each of these areas you can see—coming from very difficult and very significant disadvantage—that there have been, over time, some changes.I sometimes feel emboldened by the extent to which Aboriginals are so much more articulate today in putting their views about what should happen. I can remember earlier points in time when I felt that Aboriginals were, in a real sense, sometimes deprived of the capacity, courage, or perseverance to argue in their own cause. I now sometimes feel I will not say embarrassed but almost as one feels when somebody has abused one with a very strong and convincing argument. I feel very taken aback at the extent to which Aboriginals can now articulate their case and what they are seeking. I think the reason for this has a lot to do with what we have been able to achieve in education.It is important, in the context of the motion and the amendment that we are putting today, to recognise that Commonwealth funding for indigenous-specific programs has not only continued to increase but also now represents something of the order of $1.9 billion.When we look at ATSIC, we see an increase in 1997-98 of some $60 million over four years, with its level of funding guaranteed in all of that time. In the health area, we have seen in this year's budget something like $168 million is to be allocated to indigenous specific health programs. That represents a real increase of 37 per cent since 1995-96. Extra funding was provided in the 1996-97 budget over three years for the establishment of 35 new or expanded health services, with priority for remote and rural areas. In this budget, an additional $73 million over the next four years has been allocated to improve indigenous primary health care.In the housing area, in this budget $387 million will be spent on indigenous specific housing and infrastructure programs. In November 1996 the government announced an initiative involving the army providing urgently needed housing and infrastructure developments, including water and sewerage systems, in seven remote indigenous communities. Of course, that is also helping to ensure that skills in construction and ongoing maintenance are transferred to the communities involved. Interestingly, I gather those communities involved have been very responsive to those initiatives with our armed forces.In the area of education, funding for indigenous education programs will be $333 million this year. I was astounded to learn that today there are some 7,461 indigenous students in higher education. In 1998-99, $21.8 million will be provided under indigenous support funding programs to provide academic preparation, counselling and study centres within our universities. This recognises that sometimes, without lowering standards, there needs to be the capacity to help young people through their courses of study with peer support and special counselling. My own daughter is at the Australian National University. For a time she tutored students in courses of study that she was undertaking or had previously undertaken.I know that most of our universities are now providing those special arrangements to help Aboriginals through our educational system. That will lead to a very significant change in the future. When I think back to the time I was at university, you could perhaps count on two hands the number of students who would come through with university degrees. We have relied very heavily upon some of those people, such as Charles Perkins and so on, who obtained a university degree many years ago. But they were singular examples. Today, we have 7,461 potential Aboriginal graduates.In the area of employment and economic development, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation, which facilitates and promotes joint venture arrangements between industry, the Commercial Development Corporation and indigenous people, is to be allocated an additional $10 million to top up its capital base. The government's other indigenous specific programs include new indigenous business incentive programs which provide seed funding, training and other support for newly established businesses for indigenous Australians. Of the order of $33 million will be provided for these in 1998-99.One area about which I have always been impressed—I think it was, probably, if you wanted to use the term, the first work for the dole arrangement in Australia—is the community development employment program. With indigenous people there is an unemployment rate that is four times that of the general population, but this scheme enables our indigenous people to forgo rights to unemployment benefits and undertake work on community projects which will benefit them.Those community projects have been protected from any form of expenditure reduction. In fact, they were expanded to a total funding, in 1998-99, of $402 million for 33,083 participants. That scheme is one which I know gives Aboriginals an opportunity to be involved in maintaining their homes, the environment in which they are living and their communities, and it provides them with self-esteem. Rather than getting what I think was often colloquially referred to as `sit down' money, they are able to say, `I have worked for these particular funds that I am being paid.'We have put these arrangements in place in the context of ensuring that Aboriginal programs will be free from criticism. In the past, one has been prepared, perhaps, to forgo the opportunity to effectively audit and ensure that accountability arrangements are in place. One way of ensuring that these programs are well supported is to ensure that the community recognises that they are accountable and, especially, worked.My colleague the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) fully supported the Commonwealth initiatives when he outlined them in relation to the response to the Bringing them home report. I am pleased that this debate has not been acrimonious but has been positive. We look forward to support for our amendment from the opposition. (Time expired)17:07:003712Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—It causes me considerable pain, and to some extent grief, to participate in this debate today for reasons which I now outline. I find the motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) to be eminently supportable. It is interesting that in their contributions the two government ministers—the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock)—have not attempted to argue in any way against the motion. Both of them are decent individuals and amongst the better of the government ministers. Deep down, I think they would be wanting to support this motion.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—In contrast to the Prime Minister.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—It is sad for me that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has not seen fit or felt able to participate in this debate. I believe he should have. This debate is very important. As the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said, it does not have to be acrimonious; nevertheless, it is an important debate—important enough, I would have thought, for the Prime Minister to have participated. I feel very sad that he has chosen not to do so.The Minister for Family Services said the debate is about semantics, but it is not. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition strikes at the very core of this issue. In his motion, the Leader of the Opposition said that an apology is the first step to effective reconciliation. That is the crux of this debate. That is not semantics; that is something which I believe is supportable.The government ministers who spoke said that Reconciliation Week is supported by the government—`strongly supported', the Minister for Family Services said—but by its actions here today it has demonstrated otherwise. I was also disappointed by the Prime Minister's answer in question time on this issue where he indicated, yet again, his intention not to apologise. I take the Leader of the Opposition's point that it is now too late for an apology—it would be hollow and meaningless. I think it is pointless to continue to expect or to ask that the Prime Minister should apologise on behalf of the government, this parliament or the people of Australia. That opportunity has been lost. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to provide leader ship in giving an explanation of this issue to Australians, many of whom do not understand why they should apologise.I have had calls to my office today from well-meaning people who are confused about this issue—why should they say sorry? They have to understand and they have to be convinced. They would be convinced if there had been bipartisan support in this parliament for that proposition. It would have been a great day for us in this parliament. It would have been a defining moment, not only in the history of this parliament but in the history of this nation. We had the opportunity—we still have the opportunity in a sense, although it will not happen—for a bipartisan approach. If we had taken that opportunity, we could then have put this behind us and moved on towards the year 2001 when we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of our nationhood, with reconciliation advanced rather than retarded by the events of today.In the year 2001, if we have not achieved reconciliation, then our celebrations, as I said yesterday, will be hollow, meaningless and hypocritical. An opportunity has passed us today and, as I said at the outset, it makes me very sad that that is the case.The government tactics in this matter really confuse and worry me. The fact is that because this motion by the Leader of the Opposition is supportable, and knowing that many of my former colleagues would, I suspect, want to support it were they given the opportunity to do so, this should be a conscience vote. If ever there were a matter that has come before this parliament that is a matter of deep conscience, this is such a matter. People on both sides of this House will want to apologise.For some reason, the government, in its tactical considerations, is going to deny members a conscience vote. They will be forced to vote against this motion. In doing so, many of them will also be forced, unfortunately, to vote against their conscience. I do not say that lightly because I know they all have a conscience and many would want to say today, in the context of this debate, `I am sorry.' Yet we have an attempt by the government to supplant the Leader of the Opposit ion's very well designed motion with a meaningless self-congratulatory amendment.I will not support that amendment. It is supportable, but why should I? It is so hollow and meaningless. In fact, it is not a true amendment at all. It does not do anything to amend the opposition leader's motion. It is a totally different proposition altogether. It occurred to me, in terms of the standing orders, that it should not even have been accepted as an amendment, but I did not see much point in pursuing that particular issue.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You were very wise.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Perhaps. I am not always so, but thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The amendment makes the point that it is all about money. This is where the government has this issue so wrong. Twice in the amendment we are called to note that the government is spending almost $1.9 billion on indigenous specific programs. We are reminded that the government is spending $63 million as a result of the Bringing them home report. In other words, we can spend our way out of this issue; we can solve this problem by spending more money. I would have thought the history of our handling of Aboriginal affairs in this place would have demonstrated time and again that throwing money at this problem will not solve it, as necessary as it is to improve the degree of disadvantage which our indigenous people suffer vis-a-vis all of us in this place who have had privileged upbringings.No amount of money, not billions of dollars, will substitute for the one word that we could have unanimously uttered in this place today, and that word is `sorry'. If we had taken that opportunity, as a nation I think we would have achieved an enormous amount. As a parliament, we could have been proud of that achievement and the bipartisanship and leadership that would have been shown in doing that would have made us very proud to call ourselves Australians.Instead of that, I find myself, as I said at the outset, grieved and saddened by the approach that the government has taken on this issue. What is the problem? We have not heard from the ministers who have spoken what the problem is with saying sorry. Is it a legal problem? When the issue first came up, the proposition was put to us that somehow this would create a legal problem for the government. That now seems to have gone by the board and that argument is no longer put. If there was a legal argument, the Minister for Family Services is a lawyer and he did not put it. If there is a legal problem with saying sorry, then argue that way, but there is not. The reason for not saying sorry is a political one, and that is why it hurts.I think I understand the reason, having thought like that until maybe 12 or 18 months ago when I finally came to grips with the matter by spending time with some of my Aboriginal brothers and sisters and I came to understand what this was all about. There are a lot of people out there who do not understand, and the government seem to have the message that if they say sorry they will upset a lot of people, but that is where the issue of leadership comes in. Once we understand how important this issue is, how important this apology is to the process of reconciliation, that is when leadership comes in—to bring people with you on this issue. You cannot do anything else on this issue other than provide leadership and help people understand why it is important. And that, unfortunately, is what has been lacking.It was ironical that my friend the Minister for Family Services was called upon to speak in the debate on this motion, because the forced removal of children from their parents which we are talking about today has destroyed, and continues to destroy, thousands of Aboriginal families. The Minister for Family Services did not mention that.Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said, it is too late for the Prime Minister to apologise. Reconciliation, despite the government's embracing of it—and I believe that is genuine—will not be possible without an apology, and now, unfortunately, I believe that it will not be possible for a coalition government to deliver to this nation by the year 2001 the degree of reconciliation that we will need to have by then if we are to celebrate genuinely the 100th anniversary of our nationhood. Unfortunately, I think that the government now has little credibility on this issue of reconciliation. It pains me to say that because I know it hurts a number of my former colleagues who I know very well and who I know today would be feeling very deeply on this issue and would be wanting to have the opportunity to say sorry. I do not entirely understand why the government has chosen the tactics, with its amendment, that it has.Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to move on. We could have put this matter behind us. Today was the opportunity to say sorry, to move on, to start looking forward, and to put all of this behind us, but we have missed that opportunity. As I said earlier, if the opportunity had been taken, there could have been a bipartisan approach. We have let Australia down. I think we have let ourselves as a parliament down by the way in which we have approached this issue.Finally, I do not intend to support the government's amendment to the motion. It is not unsupportable. It is self-congratulatory; it is largely factual. But on principle I will not support it because it is not in the spirit of what we are talking about. The opposition leader's motion is in the spirit of what this day is all about and what this week is all about. I will happily support that.The sad thing is that I do not think many of the government members coming into the chamber will even know what they are voting against. Perhaps it would be timely to remind them of what the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition actually states, because many of them will come in here and not realise that they are being forced, by virtue of the government's tactic on this matter, to vote against what I think is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I think the support of it would have furthered us as a nation, as individuals and as a parliament. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Warwick Smith's ) be agreed to.17:24:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)81Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Campbell, G.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.*Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M.52Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.17:28:003716Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move that the following words be added to the motion as amended:(5) records their concern for the policies that separated Aboriginal children from their parents, noting that this produced a basic denial of their human rights and caused great suffering;(6) and its Members apologise and record their deep regret for the pain and suffering endured by Aboriginal citizens;(7) and its Members apologise for the mistakes of the past in respect of Aboriginal citizens; and(8) records its gratitude to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, led by Sir Ronald Wilson, for their work in this area.It is not my intention to take any length of time on this because of the agreement we have on the debate, but it does seem to us that, given what we have heard from the other side, this proposition is a reconciling of the two motions and it is in the interests of reconciliation.Clearly we have signalled a preparedness to adopt as an addendum to our motion that which has been moved by the government. I think that when you have listened, as those of us who sat in this chamber did, to the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), you will note that they are prepared to say sorry and they find nothing wrong with the words. The member for McPherson (Mr Bradford), who left the Liberal Party in part because of its attitude on Aboriginals, has indicated succinctly that he can see nothing wrong in the two motions.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, you have got the agreement and—WI4REITHMr Reith—We had an agreement, and I think it is only reasonable that people adhere to an agreement which was fairly and honourably entered into.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I cannot believe I heard that from the Leader of the House. Fairly and honourably! Legal! Come off it—the conspirator extraordinaire.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You will withdraw that.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I withdraw it. The proposition that is involved here—CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Deputy Speaker—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—He is out of his seat!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—He is out of his seat. You are right.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We want to bring the two motions together, and I believe that many members on that side of the House agree with that proposition. They have spoken to us privately about that, and this is what they want.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I second the amendment.17:31:003716Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The government indicates that this amendment to our motion is not acceptable and will be rejected. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Mr Crean's amendment) be so added.17:31:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)52Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.83Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Campbell, G. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Motion, as amended, agreed to.Matters of Public Importance371710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) that he has withdrawn the matter of public importance which he had submitted for discussion today.Committees3717371737173717Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 1 June 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 1 June 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 1 June 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list. COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statementsTREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on Multilateral Agreement on Investment.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on copyright, music and small business.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.3 PROCEDURE—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on review of the House of Representatives committee system.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining for committee and delegation reports.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr McMullan to 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.2Ms Kelly to move:That this House:(1) recognises that the former Labor Government created a child care system which was based on inequitable funding practices such as operational subsidies;(2) agrees that the Government's reform of the child care system provides for an equitable distribution of money between low and middle income families and the creation of an extra 83 000 places over the next four years;(3) notes and supports the Government's allocation of $4.9 billion to the child care system over the next four years;(4) calls on the Opposition to stop its campaign of misinformation to parents which threatens to do long-term damage to the child care sector as a whole; (5) notes that due to this Government's reforms low and middle income families are now better off than under the previous Government; and(6) condemns the former Labor Government for its management of the child care sector, creating a massive oversupply of centres in some areas and undersupply in others.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr McLeay to move:That this House calls on the Government to make closed captioning compulsory on all prime time programs and all news programs. (Notice given 23 March 1998. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Orders of the day1PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE: Resumption of debate (from 1 December 1997) on the motion of Mr E. H. Cameron That this House:(1) acknowledges that Australia's health system is reliant on a successful private health insurance industry complementing the public health system;(2) notes with concern the neglect of the former Labor Government to stem the exodus from private health insurance between 1984 and 1996;(3) calls on the Australian Labor Party to agree to supporting incentives for private health insurance as part of its policy platform at its annual conference in 1998;(4) expresses its support for the incentives provided by the Federal Government for people to maintain private health insurance and for those who do not have it, to take it out;(5) calls on private health insurers to minimise any premium increases which may force more Australians to reconsider their membership;(6) welcomes any further policies which encourage people who can afford to take out private health insurance, to do so; and (7) calls on the Government to refer the issue of private health insurance and the Australian health system to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs for further solutions to alleviate the decline in private health insurance caused by the policies of the former Labor Government.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3719371917:42:003719Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report entitled Draft estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99 .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—I table the report on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99 in accordance with provisions of section 53 of the Auditor-General Act 1997. The tabling of this report is a historic occasion for the committee which has a unique role in oversighting the process of budgetary appropriation for the Australian National Audit Office. This measure is in itself a significant guarantee of the independence of the Auditor-General from executive government.In its report No. 346, Guarding the independence of the Auditor-General, tabled in October 1996, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts recommended that it be given a statutory power to consider and report on draft budget estimates of the audit office as part of the then Auditor-General Bill. The committee argued that the proper resourcing of the Auditor-General and the ANAO was `integral to the functional independence of the Auditor-General'. It also argued that it was the `role of Parliament and not the Executive to take responsibility for ensuring that audit functions are adequately resourced'.Although under section 56 of the constitution it is indisputable that the office of the Auditor-General cannot be legally or finan cially independent from the executive in any absolute sense, it has been possible to insulate the Auditor-General's financing from executive influence to ensure that the audit office cannot be starved of funds.A process has been put in place whereby the draft budget estimates are considered by the JCPAA before the budget is handed down and the committee's report provided to the minister for finance to be tabled as soon as practical after the budget. This process allows the resourcing of audit functions to be made transparent to the parliament so that the executive is held to account for the level of resources appropriated to allow the Auditor-General to fulfil the statutory functions of his office.With respect to the budget estimates for the 1998-99 financial year, the committee accepts that the budget appropriation figure of $53.703 million, as finally adjusted, is sufficient for the ANAO to carry out its functions. The committee acknowledges the response of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), who commented on the cooperative manner in which this unprecedented process of parliamentary scrutiny was implemented by the JCPAA and the Australian National Audit Office. I commend the report to the House. I seek leave to move:That the House take note of the report.Leave granted.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills3719r4543719Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Miscellaneous3720Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 Bills3720r5313720Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.17:47:003720Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I was amazed, I must say, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) suggesting a couple of days ago that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was not to be trusted to keep his promises to the nation about tax reform to assist low and middle income earners. This from the great pretender, the man who devised the distinction between core and non-core promises and then shamelessly broke most of them anyway. This from the man who said in a speech in June 1995:I would rather promise half of what people might want and honour 100 per cent of it than commit myself to everything and deliver only half of it.This from the man who placed his hand on his heart before the last election and told listeners to Radio 2UE:Look, I have made it clear . . . I am not going to break the promises.This from the man who, when questioned further about whether his promises were contingent upon the state of the budget, maintained his position. The interviewer, Mr Laws, said:So what you are saying . . . is if you had a choice between breaking election promises and running a budget deficit, what would you choose?Howard: Well, we won't break . . . we would always give preference to keep our promises.Laws: So even if it means running a deficit?Howard: Well, if it means that we have to delay achieving the underlying surplus, because we've always said it will, that is the answer.While increasingly more weasel words were inserted into his statements before his first budget, he did say again before that first budget:We don't intend to hurt people who need help. Anything we do . . . will fully honour the commitments we made to individuals in relation to pensions and the level of unemployment and sole parent benefits—things of that character.So he shifted ground a bit, but still there with a promise. Of course, he broke that promise, and many others, in the first budget, and again in the second and again in the third, all the while claiming that it was due to unforeseen budgetary problems—the ones that would not bother him, he said to John Laws. It is the oldest trick in the book. During the election debate in February 1996, the Prime Minister solemnly intoned:. . . every single dollar of the promises that I made to the Australian people are going to be kept.Who is not to be trusted? As well as being grammatically incorrect, this assurance was also wrong. Howard short-changed the Australian people to the tune of $17 billion worth of broken promises over four years.This budget gives us an opportunity to measure the Howard government's performance against the promises they made to the electorate before the last election. Since their betrayal has been so comprehensive, I do not have time in the 15 minutes available to me to cover all the territory, so I will focus on a few areas which are critical to the wellbeing of all Australians and to the future of our nation, in particular health care, child care and employment, education and training.One of the clearest promises made by the coalition before the last election—and I had cause to notice it—was that they would not change Medicare. They were insistent they would retain it in the form that it was developed and implemented by Labor. They would not revert to the Fightback formula, with which we had become familiar. In February, the coalition health policy launch contained the assurance:We will maintain Medicare in its entirety.That is a very simple promise, very clear and unequivocal. Further, they said:None of the health policy initiatives will entail cuts to funding for public hospitals. That is very clear again. These were very important promises to the Australian people, since it is almost certain that one of their reasons for rejecting the conservatives in 1993 was the fact that the conservatives were going to wind back Medicare and the public hospital sector. Howard was very keen indeed to distance himself from his predecessor, Dr John Hewson.Once in government, however, the Liberals' longstanding antipathy to Medicare became very obvious. It was quickly in evidence and has been consolidated in a series of moves which undermine Medicare's integrity, contrary to the promises that they made. For instance, in 1996, $800 million was cut from public hospitals by a combination of cuts to financial assistance grants to the states and direct cuts justified on the spurious grounds of cost shifting. They actually penalised the states who had done the least, not the most.The Commonwealth dental program, worth $400 million, was simply abolished. Pharmaceutical co-payments for pensioners and families reduced government funding by $732 million and transferred the costs directly to the users. A further billion dollars was saved from freezing the GP rebate and restricting provider numbers and other measures. So health was hit hard.This was a full frontal attack on the cornerstones of the Medicare compact with the Australian people—a direct breach of all their promises, especially since a good portion of these funds went to their spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to prop up the private health funds. As Kennett remarked in his typically pungent fashion, this was `money down the drain'.The use of money from the public hospitals to pay for failed private health insurance rebates was also a clear breach of another policy in their 1996 statement, which stated:. . . the private health insurance incentives will not be funded from the public hospital system or the health grants to the states.Yet that is what they did. I can only presume that the `not' was a typographical error. It is clear that they always intended this switch, as they did in Fightback.This was a cynical attempt to undermine our faith in the capacity of Medicare to provide a reliable and quality health care system for Australia. What we have is longer and longer waiting lists, industrial disruption, increased costs and, as a result, greater anxiety about standards. All of this takes a toll on the people of Australia.Our hospitals and their dedicated staff are now working under clearly intolerable pressures and it is starting to show. For instance, in my own state of WA, nurses have for the first time in the history of that state gone on strike. Their pay and conditions have deteriorated dramatically under the conservative Court government. These cuts have compromised it further and they are not prepared, incidentally, to stand by and watch hospital standards compromised further. Noteworthy is the AWA—the so-called new award—being offered to the new graduates. It contains some very unpalatable elements including, for instance, an allowance for a 7½-hour break between shifts. They are supposed to leave the hospital at 10 o'clock at night, drive home—however long that takes—have a sleep and a meal and get back within 7½ hours. Not surprisingly, they are rejecting that so-called offer.As if this was not a sufficient indication of the government's desire to corrode the key elements of Medicare, in 1997 a further $673 million was removed from the pharmaceuticals budget. Plans were also launched for the closure of Medicare offices—there have been 43 so far, mainly in Labor constituencies—restricting access to full payment services. The substitutes are definitely second-rate. This action was from the same government, incidentally, which promised at the last election to open new offices in practically every marginal seat in the country. I followed them around as they announced that. Instead, they are closing them.MG4LEEMr Lee—Even Chisholm.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has moved from there so he does not have to cop the consequences.It is astounding that there is no remedy at all in this budget for the No. 1 problem in this country—that is, health. The crisis in our public hospital system deserves priority attention from this government; instead, the government has compounded the problem created by conservative state governments systematically ripping funds out of hospitals over the last five years by not only slashing its own funding but also now offering totally inadequate funds under the next round of Medicare agreements.Despite every major commentator agreeing that more is needed, there is not one extra dollar on the negotiating table. It is the same offer which resulted in the walk-out of the Premiers when it was last discussed. While Borbidge has either sold out or been bought off for the Queensland election—it is not clear yet which of those is true—the other states have held firm. They need to, and they know they need to.The Howard government's claims that this is a generous offer involving significant extra funding have been dynamited too by the former leader Dr John Hewson. Again, yesterday, he made it clear that this offer is no such thing—certainly not generous. In an article in the Financial Review, Dr Hewson wrote:The Commonwealth claims a 15 per cent increase, but the States have to adjust for demographic factors—in other words, more people—the ageing of the population and the requirements of service delivery—the 15 per cent becomes 1 per cent, insufficient to deliver what patients now demand. The impasse means poorer quality health services and longer queues at hospitals. How long do the queues have to get before the Commonwealth and the States talk again, let alone actually solve the funding-service delivery imbalance?That is a question we have been asking, too. Dr Hewson goes on to observe in the same article:The States attitudes have hardened as they've recognised how easily the Commonwealth has moved back into budget surplus on the back of growth taxes that have delivered them substantial real revenue gains. Much of the limited expenditure restraint has been by cutting payments to the States or by the States' fiscal contribution.And they know what is going on.Furthermore, the so-called new money in the package for mental health and palliative care is simply a continuation of existing services. It is not new at all. The Commonwealth's offer would, according to the states, result in more than one million extra patients on the waiting lists. There are already some pretty appalling examples and I will just give two from my own electorate.There is one lady living in my electorate who has been waiting since 7 April last year for an eye operation at Royal Perth Hospital. There is only one specialist in the state who can perform this operation. This woman is unemployed and is forced to wear an eye patch. One of the reasons she continues to be unemployed is that she finds it difficult to apply for jobs. She is sensitive with the eye patch. It causes her stress and is very upsetting. In another case, there is another older woman who has ongoing problems with her knees and has had numerous operations. She has been waiting, too, for over 12 months for the final operation. She waits in pain. She is unable at this stage to find out when that operation will take place and, as a result, is experiencing mobility problems, affecting her ability to care for her household. They are sadly not unique stories. They could be repeated all around this country.At the same time as we have seen these waiting lists grow, we have seen that the government have been prepared to pour funds into their ill-conceived and now failed rebate scheme for private health insurance. Even though not all of it has been taken up—some $300 million, I understand—none has been returned to the public hospital system, from which it was pilfered in the first place. I would have to say that any halfway numerate health economist could have warned them—and many did—that the introduction of rebates into an open-ended private health insurance market would simply result in higher costs, and it did. There was a windfall for all the suppliers of services and nothing for the consumers.Some states are now threatening to abandon one of the central tenets of Medicare—the free hospital treatment—and start charging for services. This would take us back to the disastrous days of the failed Fraser policies, which appeared to change almost weekly and which Dr Wooldridge, the minister responsible, described at the time as being wrong and as alienating even their best supporters. Following the Prime Minister's clear intervention in health policy, we now face the prospect of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) re-engineering the health system, as he put it. Make no mistake about it, the Treasurer has designs on Medicare.As journalist Karen Middleton pointed out last week, the Prime Minister has never wavered in his belief that the key elements of Fightback were the way to go. We have seen the IR changes, the reintroduction of a GST, the increased Medicare levy for high income earners, the rebate for those with private health insurance, and now the Treasurer has clearly enunciated threats to GP visits and hospital costs, a change which the Prime Minister has refused to rule out in question time. Fightback is back in all its threatening and funereal garb.I want to briefly mention a couple of other areas where we have seen similar betrayals of the promises of the Howard government. One of them is child care. We were told before the last election that this government would `maintain the non-means testing of the child-care rebate'. They junked that promise in the first budget. They also reassured worried families that `the coalition has no plans whatever to change the operational subsidy to the community based long day care sector'. Perhaps they did not have plans then, but they soon implemented them with a vengeance. They completely cut the subsidies, raising average child-care costs from between $14 and $20 a week, forcing many families out of child care. Overall, in the last two budgets this government has cut $800 million from child care. So harsh have been the cuts that many families have had to withdraw their children from care and use unsatisfactory alternatives or, in the case of many women, leave the work force altogether or cut their hours. The result is a significant underspend—revealed in this year's budget—of $117 million for child-care assistance. This is projected to grow to $300 million—so many families are pulling out. Families simply cannot afford the care now. In fact, they cannot afford this government.There are other choice examples, in this budget and the ones before it, of blatant broken promises presented without any apology at all to the Australian people. I will quote a couple in conclusion:We will maintain the level of funding of operating grants to the universities and there will be no cuts in university places.We are going to maintain the expenditure on labour market programs in real terms.What really happened? University operating grants were cut by $623.5 million over four years and enrolments have declined. Labor market programs were cut by $1.8 billion, and the once free public employment service was dismantled. I end where I began. Who is it that can be trusted? Certainly not this Prime Minister.18:02:003723Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—After eight years of continual budget deficits, we now have what we have all waited for: a balanced budget. The former Labor government made a lot of promises. They talked the talk, but clearly they did not walk the walk. They created high expectations, and they delivered the highs: high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation and high debt.Colleagues, let us take but a moment to visit some of the record of debt of the Labor government: in 1991-92, $11.4 billion; in 1992-93, $17 billion; in 1993-94, $17 billion; in 1994-95, $13 billion; in 1995-96, $10.3 billion. As we average Australians would know, you cannot live beyond your means. Yet, under Labor, we lived well beyond our means—we mortgaged off our children's future to overseas borrowings.In fact, if you do some simple mathematics, the last year of Labor's $10.3 billion debt equated to nearly 50c for every hour of every day of every week for one year for every man woman and child in Australia, or the debt grew at over $326 for every second of every day for that whole year.And yet these were the halcyon days of bringing home the bacon and a great set of numbers. And the self-gratifying platitudes went on and on. The Labor Party does not know the difference between fact and fiction, addition and subtraction, deficit and surplus. And yet these were the very same people who promised l-a-w, law, tax cuts and not only failed to deliver on the much promised cuts but, immediately after the 1993 election, raised wholesale sales tax by two per cent. And yet they still could not produce the balanced budget.Not only have we managed to bring the budget back into surplus; we are the only government ever to do so without raising taxes. Over the term of this government there has been no increase in income tax, no increase in company tax, no increase in wholesale sales tax, and no increase in fuel tax. In 1998 we are back on track, back in the black. This is where we are going and this is where we will stay: safe, secure and stable.As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) stated back in 1996, we did not create the problems that this nation faced, but we accepted the responsibility to fix the problem. I believe that we are well on the way to doing just that. When I came to this parliament I said in my maiden speech that I wanted to be a part of the team that turned the ship around to steer a course towards the nation's salvation.When I read in the budget papers that this government will increase the money for the national illicit drug strategy from $87.5 million over three years to $215 million over five years I could see that in relation to the debilitating drug problem in this country we are starting to head along the right course. When the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) hand-picked Major Brian Watters of the Salvation Army in March 98 to be Chairman of the National Council on Drugs, I knew that the ship was in good hands.It is an understatement to say that drugs are a major problem, a major social and human problem. Over 2,000 people a day seek out specialist help to overcome an addiction so great that these affected people will say or do anything for just another hit. We only need to look at the reaction from addicts when the lifesaving Narcan is administered to save their life and they come off their high. Recently, I was moved by a letter by a mother of a young addict—a letter full of anguish, a letter from a broken-hearted family. I will take a moment to read this letter from Mrs S:Sir,Three months ago, being Miss H's Mother I could not in all honesty have written this letter untill now. To start from the beginning, Miss H met a man called Mr G., well known to the courts. She was only 14 years old he being 9 years older. Miss H became infatuated with him and was soon led into the drug world.Her father and I tried to stop this relationship even at times in desperation nearly going outside the law; our whole lives were built around getting rid of this man, as it was evident that he could see a pot of gold, if only he could rid himself of her parents.We soon had to learn the way of the streets because in those days there was no help or advise for the parents of a drug addictive child—and believe me we tried, knocking and begging on many doors. On many occasions I would learn the whereabouts of where he had enticed her to, I would wait around corners and back streets untill the opportunity arose to snatch her from the lifeless state she was in, and try with no knowledge of how to rehabilitate her, just a mothers love to hold her through the long days and nights and try to bring her back to some form of dignity. I would begin to see a break through but once again using e.g. his mother, his sister his many friends by devious means, even to stalking her when she was doing community service at Booragal home for the aged, he would get her back.Lynne Blunt, supervisor of the home saw this and threatened him with the police, trying to remove him. The staff and all in charge thought a great deal of [my daughter] and will only be too pleased to verify what I have said.[My daughter] did, however, pull herself together and obtained a position at the [local] Chemist, the Chemist knowing her past history, but willing to give her another chance.[This man] sent his sister in every day unsettling her and stating if [my daughter] didn't come back to him he would commit suicide. With so many interruptions the Chemist had to let her go. Saying to [her father] what a terrible shame she was my best girl. He would also verify to that.We then felt if we sold our Home in the inner city and built on our property in the country at Paterson we would distance [her] from him.Little did we know this was soon to become the start of her recovery. On the 15th November 1997 on a Sunday afternoon there was a phone call from [my daughter] for help. I quote her words exactly. Please Help Me Mum. Can I come home? [Mr G.] is out of my life forever, it is all over, I need my families help.So we began a period of 10 days and nights of suffering by us all of bringing her out of the withdrawal and dependency of these drugs in her system. The only thing going for us was the seclusion to let her release the Demons from her body, this is the only way I can describe the horror of what we had to see [our daughter] go through and achieve. All we kept saying as we held her closely was how proud we were of her accepting this pain, it took untold strength to do what she did to come out the other end with no professional help, only her Mother, Father and Brother.Our next step as we saw it was to get professional help. We knew of Teen Challenges up heavels for eg. All staff had to be sacked and that was no longer an option for us. [My daughter] suggested Kirkwood House Rehab at Morrisset but [my husband] and I didn't see any real dedication to these troubled people. We then rang William Booth Institute at Surrey Hills, they spoke to her at great length. The up-shot was she told to bring her bags along to Sydney with possibility of admittance.[My daughter] was admitted. Her father and I were so very proud, because only we knew the power of strength it took for her to have reached this point.They are assessed for a week and then moved on to Selah Farm at Berkeley Vale—which is in the seat of the member for Dobell (Mr Lee)—to commence what is called the twelve steps of the Bridge Programme, still under the guidance of the Salvation Army.[My daughter] was doing so very well, I knew this because I rang 3 and 4 times a week and was told, she is working the Programme well. Her letters showed such promise of maturity especially when she said, I love you all so very much, but I also love myself and want my life back. Being that she is such a kind girl outside of addiction, she befriended a girl whose (Mother was dying and Father was in gail,) and also asked me to send cards and letters which I did, plus asking my friend to also write to Moya as a Mother figure.Her Mother did die, and when allowed out for the funeral she obtained drugs and brought them in to Selah, gave them to [my daughter] and others. An older woman of 42 yrs who used, decided with [my daughter] they would tell Captain Ashford what they had done.The ruling being that once used, you have to leave the Programme for 21 days. Moya and the other older women left, but Captain Ashford rang us and told us what had happened and said I wish to keep [my daughter] here till you can come for her as she is a very beautiful girl worth Saving.My reaction was anger but Captain Ashford tried to point out to me that this set back makes for a greater recovery, and it was also said When we were still very angry and thought she should have been stronger and refused, we were pulled up rather harshly. The comment was, she was'nt expecting the temptation of the drugs being placed in front of her in the Sanctury of the Rehab. So we began another long journey of 21 days and nights of helping to keep her clean to once again have another chance. On advice we had two urine tests per week, which we did and have from the doctor proof of this being clean even the day she was allowed back in.As we drove home with her that day the awful fear of how it was going to be humanly possible for us to face up to the next 21 days.However, our fears were unfounded because she took leadership of us all even to her brother, saying I will make it back to Selah and so she did with flying colours, using what she had learnt from the Bridge Programme and went one day at a time.Looking back the three weeks were a great help to her as many questions were asked and answered for eg. Why did I need to use? This seemed to be the stumbling block for her to move on to the next step of the 12 steps.She made it back to William Booth to start the program again. We were especially heartened by the reception she got, Councillor Anne Saying, [Miss H] do you realize what you have been able to achieve in those 3 weeks without any help from Rehab? That was very remarkable.In closing my feelings are as a family devoted to Saving her from the drug infested world. We have made a start.I visited this family on the property to see what I could do. The daughter, Miss H, poured out her story. Even for the most hardened person in this chamber, it was a sad, soul destroying story. The events post the latest rehab program was that Miss H lasted only seven days before she needed a fix. The addiction is so strong and the internal pressure so great that perhaps you and I cannot understand.Miss H has now been convicted of robbery in company and is serving three months of periodic detention. Eighty per cent of property crime is attributed to drugs crime. Make no mistake about it: I have no sympathy for the crime that she and her boyfriend committed. They deserve the full punishment of the law. I have no tolerance for the use of drugs. Zero tolerance for me is the only answer, but we need an answer to this problem.I asked Miss H to put into words what she wanted and what she saw as the solution. She wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. She said:My name is [Miss H], I am a heroin addict.I would like to take you for a walk, a walk into the life of an addict, sharing my experiences so you the leader of our country can help my generation from self-destruction, pain and anguish.My drug use has robbed me of my youth, self esteem, morals and spirituality and has brought me before the courts countless times. A world of emotional torment.It first started when I met a man 9 years my senior who introduced me to drugs. As the need became so great he then could manipulate me into crime. At the age of 15 it seemed a game eg: How far I could push Authority figures?I come from such a good and loving family who have spent the last 7 years devoted only to me.My parents and brother had their lives torn apart in every way possible, shame, hurt and tormented with the whole drug scene. Crying out for help but no-one was qualified enough to advise them.My thoughts on a couple of issues are:The drug use is to escape reality.The methadone programme is a waste of tax payers money. Those on the programme will tell you that. I've never used the methadone programme on the advice of methadone users. It simply does not work.The Israeli programme, Mr Prime Minister, is why I am writing to you, to beg you to find a way to assist me to join this programme. I have heard nothing but good clean reports on this programme. As my parents have spent thousands, for eg: relocating the family home out of the city and into the country just one of their attempts to save me. This was the most costly. To quote their sayings "The well has run dry."Please sir help me and my family.Thank you for listening to me.As a footnote she wrote the following:* Drugs are running riot in Newcastle* Pawn Brokers are fences for drug addicts to take stolen goods to convert to cash.I will continue these comments later in an adjournment debate. I thank you for the time.18:16:003726Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—This is a budget, like last year's, which disappeared from the front pages of this nation's newspapers the day after its birth. But its significance should not be underestimated. It does tell us a great deal about the kind of government we now have and it does tell us a lot about what kind of Australia we would have if this government were allowed to continue in office.The budget this year confirms and consolidates the budget strategy of the first two years of the coalition government. It shows a government which is brutal in its disregard for the unemployed and for those doing it hardest in our community. It shows a government which is contemptuous in its undermining and threatening of the interests of ordinary Australian families. It shows a government obsessive in its pursuit of small government objectives. It shows a government which is quite wrong-headed in its economic management.In achieving the surplus which is now predicted for this year, it does so not as it could and should have done on the back of jobs and growth but rather on the backs of the unemployed, of battling Australians and of ordinary Australian families. The issue is not—with respect to the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin)—back in black, back on track, as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) would have us believe; the issue is: back in black but on whose back? It is the back of ordinary Australians that this budget has been perched on—it and its predecessors.Moreover, the government is wrong-headed in its economic management in purporting to be doing this above all in the interests of improving national savings—a crucial thing to achieve if we are going to make a structural assault on the current account deficit. But, in fact, the government strategy here is acting against private savings. I will come back to that issue.Finally, the budget is the product of a government which is inherently dishonest in its approach to the management of this nation. Many of the predictions in the budget are shonky in character in a way that one can only assume is deliberate. That shonkiness shows up in the key forecasts on growth, on jobs and on the current account. There is another kind of shonkiness involved in this document insofar as it is incomplete and misleading to the extent that it does not contain within its four corners the revenue measures that, we hope, are shortly going to be announced—the government's tax package—nor does it contain the election bribery expenditure measures which are no doubt part of the government's repertoire for the future.It is not the practice to oppose appropriation bills introduced by the government of the day. No opposition does that, and we certainly will not be changing the practice. It is, however, appropriate in all the circumstances of this budget to move a second reading amendment to make clear the nature of the concern that ought to be felt about this budget and the whole budget strategy of which it is simply the third part. Accordingly, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that the Budget:(1) does nothing to redress the pain caused to ordinary Australian families, and those doing it hardest in our community, by the impact of successive Budget cuts on health, education, job programs, aged care, child care and many other government programs and services;(2) by seeking to achieve surplus on the basis of savage Budget cuts, rather than on growth and job creation, does nothing to give hope to the unemployed and underemployed;(3) confirms that the Opposition's alternative Budget strategy, as originally announced in 1996, would have returned the Budget to surplus in 1998-99—on the basis of putting growth and jobs first, with much more moderate outlays reductions;(4) lacks credibility in its growth, employment and current account deficit forecasts;(5) confirms that Australia has a private rather than public saving problem—and the stupidity of the Coalition's promise-breaking decision in 1997 to abandon Labor's superannuation co-contribution; and(6) is incomplete and misleading in its projections of future revenue and outlays, in that it makes no provision for election-driven new expenditures and the Government's GST and other tax proposals". The pain that is contained in this budget and which is the subject of the first paragraph of the amendment has been amply documented by others in this debate. I will not go into this issue in any detail, but one gets a sense of the order of magnitude of the pain involved by simply looking at the size of the dollar assault in particular areas of government services. Taking into account what has been spent as well as what has been cut, we see that the net assault on outlays in education over the last three years has been $3 billion; on health, it has been $1½ billion; and, on job programs, it has been another $1½ billion. There has been $800 million taken from child care and $400 million in net terms taken from aged care, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in other programs across the whole spectrum of government activity. Then, of course, there has been a reduction of 79,200 in the number of people employed by the Commonwealth public sector. Behind all those large figures are a multitude of individual hurts. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said in his own budget reply last week:. . . built on a million small deficits in the lives of ordinary people. . . . The hundred unspoken small goodbyes of ordinary people to their ordinary lives.That is the real story of this budget and its predecessors—those deficits—the pain that has been caused to so many people.I will give just one illustration of what is happening in practice as a result of this government's cancellation of the Commonwealth dental program to save $100 million a year. I refer to the implications of this for people in the Springvale Community Health Service in my own electorate. The waiting list in April 1996 was 3,680 people, and there was a reasonable expectation that people could be seen immediately in the case of emergencies or if there were the need for urgent treatment and would be seen within at least 12 months when non-urgent treatment was required.By April 1997—after the program had been abandoned, when the system of co-payments was introduced as a further disincentive to use of what remaining chairs were still being funded by state programs—the waiting list was 5,812. It had blown out almost to double. In April this year, when I checked the figures just last month, the waiting list was 7,151—representing a two year and two months waiting period—blowing out by more than double what the situation was two years ago. The further reality lying behind that is that there are a great many people on the waiting list and when they are contacted each month and offered the opportunity to access the dental service only 20 per cent of them are now taking up the offer, the reason being, in the judgment of the staff at Springvale, that so many people are not now able even to pay the flat rate minimum $20 that is being demanded as a co-payment. So this is the kind of pain that is involved in this particular measure, and it is just one example of a whole spectrum of pain and problems of this kind that are being generated. The question is: was it all necessary? Did we have to have—because of the state of the economy, the state of national finances—the assault of the kind that has been represented by this series of budgets? The short answer is no. The first point to make is that the condition of Australian public finance was, in fact, nothing like that which is being described by the government. We had not only among the very lowest combinations of taxing and spending in the entire OECD—with only two countries lower than us on the government spending scale and only three below us on the taxing scale—but Australia was also, at the time that this government took office, right down at the bottom end of the spectrum when it came to public debt and budget deficits—the cutting edge of this government's complaint about the condition of our national finances when they came into office. Only a couple of countries had a better record than Australia—out of the entire OECD grouping of the major industrialised countries of the world. That is best demonstrated graphically by two sets of tables which spell out, as no volume of words could, just where Australia sits on these revenue and expenditure comparison tables and public debt and public deficit comparison tables. I seek leave to incorporate those tables in Hansard .Leave granted.The tables read as follows—VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I am indebted to those concerned. These graphs bear close study, in particular the extent to which we squarely came within—before the government even began to embark on its present assault on this community's people—the Maastricht criteria of good economic housekeeping which have become part of the international economic vocabulary because they are the criteria which have been the required hurdle to be jumped by countries seeking initial entrance into the European monetary union. Australia, in terms of our respectability standard by reference to those criteria, was way under the bars in each case.The rest of the story—about the lack of necessity for what has actually happened—needs to be told and told again. It was perfectly possible to get this country back into surplus this financial year, 1998-99, without anything like the pain that has been caused by this succession of budgets. The government went down a course of full-scale assaults on outlays programs in the way that I have described. It did so in the context of talking down the nation's finances: saying we were in a dreadful condition when we weren't, but in a way which led to a dramatic deterioration in both business and, even more importantly, consumer confidence. Spending fell away. Growth fell away. Our performance over the last two years has been one of much less fast growth than in the previous two years—the last two years of Labor government—a much slower rate of job creation and, with it, a need to embark upon further deficit slashing in order to accommodate the further blow-outs that would otherwise have occurred in that deteriorating confidence environment.The ALP, by contrast, announced back in 1996—and I put it squarely on the record on this occasion in this debate in that year—that there was another way, another way to return to surplus within that time frame which would involve a deliberate decision to stimulate growth and jobs or at least maintain the rate and level of activity which prevailed when we were in government, and to have a much more modest—in that context—program of deficit reduction, building up from $1 billion off in the first year to a second billion dollars in the second year and to a third billion dollars in year three.What is fascinating about the budget papers this year is that they demonstrate, as no amount of argument from me could, the accuracy of that prediction. Very briefly, the story is this. The government are budgeting this year for a surplus of $2.7 billion. They are getting there by the impact in 1998-99 of $5.4 billion worth of net cuts. That is the effect, in 1998-99, of budget decisions that were made successively over the last three years—1996, 1997 and 1998. If you subtract that $5.4 billion worth of pain from the $2.7 billion surplus which is budgeted for, it will be obvious that you are left with a figure of minus $2.7 billion which is, equally obviously, the no policy change result that would have been the case if the government had not gone down this pain-inflicting path.In other words, if Labor had still been in office, if there had been no policy changes since the last Labor budget, we would have been facing a deficit this year of minus $2.7 billion on the government's own figuring. That deficit could, of course—and this is a straight arithmetic conclusion—have been covered by a modest deficit reduction program of $3 billion worth of cuts taking effect this year. I am leaving out of the equation the growth dividend that would in turn have flowed from a less vigorous assault on the national economy which would have allowed the economy to grow faster, jobs to grow faster, more people to pay tax—more revenue and less social security outlays being required as a result. If you take the growth dividend into the equation as well, you are left with the conclusion that we would amply have been able to obtain exactly the same order of magnitude of surplus this year as the government has done, but done so with infinitely less pain to ordinary Australians.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Labor's credentials to deliver the kind of outcome I was referring to before the dinner break are amply demonstrated by our track record. We inherited in 1983 a budget deficit worth some $25 billion in today's monetary terms and were able, by dint of assiduous, disciplined economic management—but built on the back of jobs and growth rather than savage budget cuts—to translate that into a series of surpluses within four years.In our last term in office we demonstrated our capacity to grow the economy at a very fast rate, both comparatively speaking internationally and in terms of Australia's previous experience, certainly a full percentage point faster than the coalition have been able to manage in their first two years in office—4.3 in our case compared with 3.2 in theirs. We were also able to generate average employment growth each year of around 2.7 per cent compared with the present 1.6 or worse, which translated into massive job creation and a significant reduction in the unemployment rate which would have produced, we genuinely believe—and the figures demonstrate it—an unemployment rate of about five per cent by the turn of the century with us sitting on about six per cent now and 150,000 more people back in work.What story does this budget tell us about Australia's economic future? A lot of that depends on the credibility of the assumptions that lie behind the forward projections in the budget papers. Growth was projected to come back from 3¾ to three per cent this year but that, in turn, was built on a rather optimistic assumption about AMP shareholders kicking up their heels with the windfall gains that would flow from demutualisation—an assumption that may not prove to be justified. It was also based on an assumption about a fairly rapid return to normality of the situation in Asia, with the worst of the Asian economic crisis being well and truly over by the end of the forthcoming financial year—an assumption which has been roundly criticised by a great many commentators who say it is overly optimistic.Similarly, employment growth, which lies behind the predicted unemployment rate of 7 per cent—bad though that is—at the end of next year is predicted to increase from 1¼ to 1¾ per cent, but that is at a time when GDP growth is going backwards, as is private consumption and business investment. Frankly, that is not a credible combination of assumptions, unless you assume that productivity is rapidly falling, but the budget papers give no support for any such conclusion.Similarly, with the current account deficit, which is an important constraint upon any government, it should be less of a constraint if we were doing something credible about private savings but the government, having broken its promise to implement Labor's superannuation co-contribution in the last budget, has created an environment where there is no hope for any major structural change in the foreseeable future so far as private savings performance is concerned, and that does throw an additional burden on the public sector when it comes to generating savings that are necessary to deal with a serious current account blow-out.The situation is gloomy enough with the budget papers predicting a 5¼ per cent deficit average over the year, but even that estimate is perceived by many commentators to be an unduly optimistic one, not least in the light of the Reserve Bank making it clear that it believes the current account deficit will reach six per cent of GDP within a very few months.The budget is silent, as our second reading amendment adverts to, when it comes to documenting the likely scale of the election expenditure bribes which will no doubt be part of the government's outlays repertoire in the foreseeable future. Nor, of course, does it say anything about tax proposals and GST in particular, all of which will have a significant impact on the balance of revenue and outlays in the period ahead.The assertions which lie behind the Telstra dividend flow in the future are, again, in our judgment, not likely to be realised, with the very real prospect of any saving on public debt interest flowing from the sale of Telstra being well and truly outweighed by the loss of dividends that would otherwise be flowing from Telstra in the period ahead, representing a short-term gain to the community in terms of money available for recurrent expenditure but a very serious long-term loss.All of these things are cause for concern, both in the way the government has acted in the past and in the way that this budget, the reasoning behind it and the measures behind it, tell it will operate in the future. It is not a budget for this or any other government to be proud of. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I second the amendment.20:06:003733Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I rise with great delight tonight to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 . For me, it is the cherry on top of a very successful first term of a government that is here for the long-term, bringing stability of government. We will see ourselves emerging through the crises in our region with a stronger domestic economy and with competition through South America, South Africa and the Middle East. We will diversify into a range of markets across the world and take our place, once again, in the top 10 nations of the world, which is where Australia should be. I entered politics to see our great nation in that position.In my time representing Lindsay, short though it has been, we have seen a number of tremendous improvements delivered by this government. We have seen unemployment rates dropping to 7.1 per cent, well below the national average. We have commenced the operation of a backyard cafe for youth in our area, to provide a supervised area in which to hang, under a blanket umbrella of Fusion, which gives them some really good values to guide them through difficult times in their lives. We have seen the successful restart of the Penrith Kitchen, which is a place where people who are hungry can get a meal at lunchtime five days a week, with no questions asked. That is a valuable service which has been lacking in western Sydney.We have seen the Claremont Meadows Primary School finally up and operational—$3.3 million went to that school. I remember the former member for Badgerys Creek, Anne Cohen, campaigning long and hard to see that achieved. Finally, the fruits of her labour came through with this government. We saw Glenmore Park High School given $5.5 million to start operations there. The Nepean District Christian School was given assistance with extensions to their school and we saw the dumping of the new schools policy, which was roundly applauded by a lot of the independent schools in my area where low income earners send their children.Youth unemployment is trending down. We have seen the lowest interest rates since man walked on the moon. We have seen the lowest inflation since the 1970s and the lowest unemployment for nearly eight years. We have seen government debt reduced by $31 billion—from a debt of $96 billion. We have done all this with three budgets, and this is the key thing for my constituents. We have managed to achieve all of this surplus, with safety and security from the Asian crisis, with no increase in income tax, no increase in company tax, no increase in wholesale sales tax and no increase in petrol tax. I am very proud of my government for achieving that.An obvious comparison is the state government in New South Wales where Bob Carr is continually increasing petrol tax, land tax and pokies tax. He is having to tax the people of New South Wales more and more because he cannot stay within his budget. He cannot spend only what he is currently taking in. He always overspends and consequently has to sell assets in order to cover his deficits, or he raises taxes. People in my area have been hit very hard by that. The average resident in Lindsay would spend $36 each week for a tank of fuel. Averaged out across 50,000 residents, that is $5 per tank, $250,000 per week or $12 million per year. We have seen none of those taxes spent on the roads in western Sydney. Clearly, that state policy needs to be looked at. We will be looking to Bob Carr to give us our fair share of that money.We have seen increased funding to hospitals in New South Wales, yet they want more. The state government has been unable to reduce hospital waiting lists, as they promised, and they come back and say that it is a federal government problem. We have given them money, we have given them the means to do it, but still western Sydney gets half the dollars per capita that inner city residents get.Further evidence of Bob Carr's Sydneyccentricity is the fact that he is seeking $200 million to tear down an apparently ugly building near the Opera House which has been nicknamed `the toaster'; whereas in western Sydney he will not spend $200 million to raise the dam wall and reduce the danger of flooding. Instead, we are sent glossy little brochures telling us how to live in a flood plain. It is not the type of treatment that people in western Sydney deserve. It is not the type of treatment that the federal Liberal government has given them during our term in office. I certainly would like to see that changed around on a state basis as well.Lindsay predominantly has families which are raising young children, sending them off to school and paying a mortgage. For example, a family with one breadwinner earning $40,000 a year and with two children one of whom is under five will be advantaged by about $900 a year in the Howard government's family tax initiative. If they have private health insurance, they will be eligible for a maximum private health insurance rebate of $450 a year. They will be able to take advantage of the savings rebate of $450 a year. They will be able to receive the rebate for spouse superannuation contributions of up to a maximum of $540 a year. In addition to that, if they have a mortgage of $100,000, the reductions in interest rates which the government has brought about will mean a saving of about $3,800 a year. All of that totals $6,140 a year for the average family in Lindsay.We are better off because of the efforts of this government. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister on numerous occasions, and by our Treasurer (Mr Costello), the people of Lindsay are up to $6,000 better of because the policies of this government have focused on mainstream issues and not been diverted by one-issue wonders and throwing money away chasing votes. We have stuck to mainstream issues. We have delivered on unemployment, health, education and on issues of concern to people in my electorate. No matter what their union membership, ethnicity or sex, we have delivered for the people of Lindsay.We have seen the opposition try to make a big thing of child care in my area—a very important issue. There are 27 private child-care providers in Lindsay who have been unaffected by the cuts to the operational subsidy—in effect, an unfair subsidy given to council centres which enabled them to compete against the private centres on an unlevel playing field.The private sector is up and running, and is very viable right across Australia. Seventy per cent of parents using long day care centres are utilising private centres. So it has been successful right across Australia, and it will be so in Lindsay—only we need a bit of foresight, a bit of consultation and a bit of application from Penrith City Council to see that these transitions are made and that, with regard to the money going back into parents' pockets, they have a greater choice as to where and how they spend it.There are now 83,000 more child-care places available across Australia, and they are not just in long day care centres. We have got occasional care, ASHC and family day care centres. In fact, a family eligible for the maximum rate of child-care assistance would receive $107.50 a week for a child in a full-time place in a long day care centre. This represents $5,600 a year, or $12,300 a year for two children. That is the amount of child-care assistance that this government is giving families that seek child-care assistance. So it is available, and I think the misinformation scare campaign run by the opposition is indicative of their attitude right across the board when they do not have a policy or a platform. It is simply a case of `back to the future—2 March 1996'.We have seen a backtracking on policy that does not take Australia forward; it shows absolutely no vision for this nation. We have delivered on a vision as to where we want to be. In one term, we have put Australia back on track, back in the black, to where we want to be. We are heading for a great new era of dynamic domestic growth, an era of competition not just in Asia but throughout all the emerging markets in our region. We are seeing this done with no increases in tax, and with being able to stay within our expenditure.This bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to the people of Australia, a commitment to make this a great nation and to take us out of the very dark era of 13 years of Labor, when we had `a recession we had to have', and when we had small business being told, `This is as good as it gets.' It is now pretty, pretty good, and it is going to get better. I commend the bill to the House.20:17:003735Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—We are the hollow menWe are the stuffed menLeaning togetherHeadpiece filled with straw. Alas!Our dried voices, whenWe whisper togetherAre quiet and meaninglessAs wind in dry grassOr rats' feet over broken glassIn our dry cellarShape without form, shade without colour,Paralysed force, gesture without motion;Those who have crossedWith direct eyes, to death's other KingdomRemember us—if at all—not as lostViolent souls, but onlyAs the hollow menThe stuffed men.Mr Deputy Speaker, T.S. Eliot's poem The Hollow Men , written in 1925, the first section of which I just quoted, would amply stand as a symbol for this coalition government, for this budget which they have just brought down and for the two budgets preceding it.This is a budget of hollow men, of stuffed men, those who whisper dryly to the electorate at large. They have not delivered substance, they have not delivered certitude. They have not delivered, certainly, security, stability or safety for this community in which we are living. The budget we see before us tonight is the end product of the two prior budgets. One of the other `s' words that the coalition government has used, the surplus `s' word, is based upon the cuts that were made in the 1996 budget and the 1997 budget. We see here in this current budget the end product of those cuts. We see also a situation where the fundamental philosophies of this government have come into play.I note that in the Budget overview and economic outlook produced by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Treasury in relation to this budget, they make this point: the government had promised and delivered on a return to surplus in its first parliamentary term. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the long history of this Commonwealth, coalition governments have delivered surplus budgets just once—in 1998-99. They have never previously delivered a surplus budget. During our term in office, Labor in fact delivered four surplus budgets. In all of the accounting that the Treasurer does, in all of the comparisons, he leaves that fact out—that there were four Labor surpluses and this government has achieved merely one. He likes to present his situation—having achieved a surplus based on pain and racking the entire electorate for the last two years over their three budgets—as a great achievement and neglects to represent truthfully what the situation was with our prior surpluses, which were delivered in a much more socially responsible manner.This government projects that there will be further surpluses over the period 2001-2002. But all of the budget figurings that have been put forward, the central ones that we are dealing with in these budget papers, are open to severe question. They are not merely open to severe question with regard to what was previously described by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) as the firestorm that was awaiting us from the situation in Asia, but they are reflected in whether that growth rate that has been predicted—a growth in real GDP of three per cent—is sustainable, given that the major impacts on Australia and on Australia's trade position have not yet been fully felt. Those major impacts will come later this year, running into next year.This budget is also predicated on a presupposition that the government will reduce unemployment in this next period. Given the problems in the Asian economy and elsewhere, both the projected growth rate and the employment projections have been questioned by economists from one end of the land to the other. They have also been directly questioned by members of the Labor Party, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans), because these figures are rubbery, these figures are fudged and this surplus is fudged.One of the major elements which has been entirely left out but which is at the core of this budget is the expectation that many tens of billions of dollars will be raised by the sale of the last two-thirds of Telstra—a figure of about $45 billion. Those figures need to be taken into account when you are looking at the base of this budget. There is nothing certain about that sale because the legislation has not gone through here. There is nothing certain about the sale because it is also predicated on the re-election of a coalition government. That will come to the test in the next couple of months.But if we look a bit closer at the budget figures in these papers before us, there are increases in estimated revenue. PAYE taxpayers will pay an additional $5.18 billion to the Taxation Office—that is an increase of 8.4 per cent. There is an increase in indirect taxes of an additional $1.2 billion—or 3.8 per cent. Today in question time, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made a great deal of Labor's taxation policy and the taxation system that, he said, Labor was wedded to in its period in office and prior to that. The taxation policy that existed during the Labor period in office is the same taxation policy, with some modifications, that this government has operated for its first two years in office.This government reveals in these papers that it will take an extra $5.18 billion, or an 8.4 per cent increase, from pay-as-you-earn taxpayers. It states directly that it will increase indirect taxation by 3.8 per cent—raising additional revenues of $1.2 billion. Is the Prime Minister really saying that the current taxation system is invalid? That taxation system has a long heritage and he is now so intent on criticising it. Is he saying that in this last financial year and the one before that—in the two years in which he has been in office—all the moneys raised by this government, both directly and indirectly, were invalidly raised and effectively should be given back to the people because the taxation system is not as he wants it? I would guess not, but you would not know from the Prime Minister's demeanour at question time in regard to this issue.His whole depiction of our taxation system, which is the other large element that has been left out of most of the budget papers because his package is to come later, is of an unsustainable taxation system. He makes the key point that something needs to be done about bracket creep. Time and time again during Labor's period in office, the bracket creep was adjusted. If Labor comes back to government, we will do exactly the same thing again. This is a system that has worked well over the period of this Commonwealth, and it has worked well because people have moderated and adjusted it according to the circumstances of the time.If one casts one's mind back to the Treasurer's performance on budget night, to that broken-backed speech using the extended metaphors of the road and the journey which he launched in this place, my impression was that, if you listen very closely to what he said, if you listen closely to what this government has done over the two previous budgets, this falls very clearly into focus as a pre-election budget.The Treasurer wrote the speech himself in that broken-backed and cliched manner. But what was he attempting to do? He was attempting to dress up the measures that are involved in these budget packages by using boosterism. The key element of boosterism that one needs to look at—its basic fault—was probably best analysed by Vance Packard when he did a study of advertising generally and advertising in Australia. His key subtext was that, if you look at the advertisers and the manner in which they operate, they are trumpeters of nothingness. They trumpet very loudly, but what they trumpet has not much worth or substance. So when the Treasurer trumpets his great triumphs over the past two years or more and in the three budgets that he has brought down, they are built on the back of what was done by previous governments—previous Labor governments.He has built on the back of those. He effectively has built on the backs of giants and taken pygmy steps forward. But the boosterism and the trumpeting are there very loudly because he wants to disguise the fact that these three budgets have heavily cut into the services available to the Australian people. He wants to disguise the fact that over his three budgets—and if he gets another chance, in the next one to come—he has saved amounts of money, including that $400 million which was there in the forward estimates to be used by the Commonwealth government to enable older people to have their dental problems fixed and which was cut out in the 1996 budget. The Treasurer saved those amounts of money in the forward estimates and he obliterated that program that was allowed for in Labor's forward estimates.This is a Treasurer who would seek not only to cut services directly but also to cut as widely and as deeply as possible. That has not happened much in this budget because it happened in the previous two. The $2.7 billion surplus that he has trumpeted to the nation is built upon the savage cuts that were there in the 1996 budget.This is a Treasurer, and also a government, who would wish to eat the future. Tim Flannery's book The Future-Eaters gives us a picture of Australia as it used to be and what the effect of overexploitation was, where Australia's megafauna was killed off, eaten out and exploited. What we face very shortly—and it is told in this budget story—is that Australia's current megafauna, the biggest business that we have in this country, Telstra, has already been one-third whipped away into private hands and this government would seek to undergird what it is doing by selling away into private hands and to private benefit the key industry and key monopoly that this government and the Australian people at large own.So the government wishes to do two things which will form part of the basis of this: to impose a GST and to flog off the greatest monopoly that we still have in this country. This is a pre-election budget to walk softly, softly to that election. It is an attempt to moderate the savagery and viciousness of the cuts that were made, particularly in 1996, to buy off the elderly, particularly those retired people who are, at least in part, financing their circumstances, and it is an attempt to curry and win favour with them by giving them some small baubles.For this country, this land and all those people who have been deprived and cut down by what this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have done, the prospects are bleak. The prospects are not good because the ability to survive, prosper and deal with challenges that are there have been dramatically decreased over the past three budgets. So for Mr Costello, in introducing this, and to sum up the coalition, their approach and what they are creating we can end with this—as the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) said so well in his recent speech—this is a government that is about desiccating this continent.This is the dead landThis is the cactus landHere the stone imagesAre raised, here they receiveThe supplication of a dead man's handUnder the twinkle of a fading star.In part III of The Hollow Men T.S. Eliot gives us a picture of a bleak, desolate, desiccated land where the heart has been ripped out. With my time foreshortened by the government, I will end there.20:33:003737Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—We really have to feel sorry for the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) who in trying so hard to find something negative to say about the budget actually had to move on to describing the style of speech of the Treasurer (Mr Costello). I say to the member for Blaxland: you have got to be desperate if the worst thing you can find in the budget is the style in which the Treasurer wrote his speech.HX4KATTERMr Katter—He's a big improvement from the last member for Blaxland.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member on my right makes reference to the last member for Blaxland. I suspect the last member for Blaxland would have been disappointed in the contribution today, especially the bleatings about the sale of Telstra that we have recently heard.It is hard to believe these Labor Party members who come into this House in all seriousness and bleat about the sale of Telstra. This is the party that sold the Commonwealth Bank; this is the party that sold that great icon of Australia, Qantas. I have a little story about that. A constituent rang up the other day and asked my office manager which aircraft I flew on. She said, `She is flying on Ansett today.' The woman said, `Well, that's terrible; she should fly on Qantas—the people's airline.' It fell to my office manager to tell my constituent that, unfortunately, it was the Labor Party that sold off the people's airline. So, please, let us not hear any more about the sale of Telstra or have these crocodile tears, because the member for Blaxland knows that they will sell Telstra as soon as they get into government. Or is that another one of those promises like the tax cuts, the l-a-w that the previous holder of the seat of Blaxland promised the Australian people?I pick up on the failure of the member for Blaxland to actually recognise what this budget has done for Australia and what the situation would have been in Australia if the Labor Party was still in government. The Labor Party consistently ran up deficits. They left Australia with a $96 billion deficit. They got away with it in 1996 but since then we have had the Asian crisis. What would have happened to Australia in the wake of the Asian crisis if the Labor government were still in office with their big spending habits? Would Australia be as secure and as stable today as it is were we to have had another Labor budget, another three Labor budgets? The shadow minister at the table, the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), knows that that is not the case.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Ha, ha, ha!CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—We have some laughter from the member for Canberra. Perhaps the member for Canberra would like some figures to back it up.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Try to justify a $96 billion deficit!CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The $96 billion deficit was the government net debt; I acknowledge there was a debt. Let us have a look at the deficit. There was a $10.3 billion deficit in 1995-96, for the member for Canberra who wants to call across the table. How can he compare that with the $2.7 billion surplus that we have at the present?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You haven't got it—you are hoping to get it. You haven't got one yet.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Under the present circumstances with the Asian crisis, the member for Canberra might understand the analogy of a boat in rocky seas and that this one is far more stable than any boat we would have had under the Labor Party, which by now would have crashed into the rocks that surrounded it.I will continue with my comparative figures. In 1995-96, the Commonwealth general government net debt under Labor was $95.8 billion; we have reduced that in government for the 1998-99 estimate to $64.6 billion—a reduction from 19.5 per cent to 11.2 per cent of GDP. If the shadow minister at the table does not find that impressive, how do you think we would have fared in the Asian crisis were it otherwise? I move on to Commonwealth net interest payments. In 1995-96 we were paying out $7.7 billion in interest; that has now dropped to $6.6 billion. Our net interest is what we are taking away from the people of Australia.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Who are we paying it to?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The shadow minister at the table seems to feel that there is no problem with this debt. He does not want to spend that money on health, on the environment or on the aged. He would rather spend it paying off the debt in interest payments. That is the preference of the member for Canberra, and it tells us a lot about the Labor Party in which the member for Canberra is a shadow minister when he has these sorts of points of view. The unemployment rate has gone down from 8.5 per cent to 7.9 per cent.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What does the budget predict?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The Treasury underlying rate for inflation—and let's have a look at inflation—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What does the Treasury say about unemployment?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member for Canberra is so interested in what I have to say—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—The honourable member for Canberra has had his opportunity, but if he wants another opportunity there is a process. Please stop interjecting. It might be better if the member for Hindmarsh were less provocative and addressed her remarks through the chair.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I shall refrain from being provocative, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the inflation rate, under this government we have brought the Treasury underlying rate down from 3.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. This has enabled this government to have the lowest interest rates—certainly in my memory. The banks' housing rate has gone from 10.5 per cent down to 6.7 per cent. The prime rate for business has gone from 10.75 per cent down to 8.45 per cent. These are the important fundamentals that have kept Australia on a steady course through what could otherwise have been an extraordinarily difficult time for us.In the paper today we saw a warning of what might yet happen in New Zealand—and the New Zealand dollar has devalued further than the Australian dollar to this date and the warning is that it could go into a much greater decline, and in fact maybe even a free-fall. We are not seeing those concerns about Australia. We are not seeing them because this Treasurer (Mr Costello) and this government have brought Australia into a solid, stable position for the future where we can withstand the sorts of shocks that we have had from South-East Asia in the last year and which we will continue to have as the aftershocks go into 1999 and beyond.I realise that time is limited tonight, but I would like to mention some of the specific positive parts of this budget, moving away from the overall strong position this budget has placed us in here in Australia which is the rock on which we will build for future generations. Within the budget we also looked at some of the more specific problems of smaller groups in Australia, and in particular I would like to mention what we have done in the budget for the elderly.The elderly are a particular interest to me because I have a very `old' electorate in terms of the age of the people in my electorate. At one stage I think I did have the `oldest' aged electorate in Australia. I am not sure if I still hold that prize but certainly it is one of the oldest. So what we did in the budget for older Australians is of particular interest to me. Prior to the budget, two of the most frequent calls that I had to my office concerned, firstly, ex-servicemen who did not have access to the gold card but who felt that in their old age, because they had served Australia, perhaps they deserved such a card; and, secondly, from self-funded retirees.At this stage I would like to pay tribute to the self-funded retirees of Australia. These are people who have put funds away for their old age. They have worked, they have saved and they have said, `We will fund our own retirement. We will not go to the government and ask it to fund our retirement, we will fund our own.' In doing so they have helped all Australians, but some of them have suffered. They have suffered because they find that, even though they have an income that is the same as or slightly above that of a pensioner, they do not have access to the cheaper pharmaceuticals that the pensioners have. This has cost them dearly and they have felt worse off.In this budget we recognised this, and for the first time self-funded retirees at a certain income level have been given the Commonwealth seniors card. That has been extended to a very generous rate—$67,000 for a couple and $40,000 for a single, I believe. That is something that I personally applaud on behalf of the senior people in my electorate.In conclusion, may I mention the $280 million staying at home package to help elderly Australians stay in their homes, stay out of nursing homes and get the sort of care they need. Finally, I mention the free flu vaccine for people over 65 which will start in 1999. I commend an excellent budget to the House.20:45:003739Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to support the second reading amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans). In doing so, can I say that the extent to which the three Howard-Costello budgets have hurt battling Australians can be seen by comparing the raw figures from each of the three budgets.When you do that, you find that, in health, you have a net loss of $1.62 billion. In education, you have a net loss of $2.99 billion. In aged and community care, you have a net loss of $399 million. In spite of the remarks by the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus), I do not think the aged care community has done very well at all out of the three Howard-Costello budgets. In child care, there is a net loss of $798 million. In employment programs, there is a net loss of $1.49 billion. Over these three budgets, over $7 billion has been cut from these programs. No wonder battling Australians are hurting.Even the business community in western Sydney was disappointed that the 1998 federal budget did not provide the finance to complete the western Sydney orbital road system. Indeed, this was a major issue in my electorate, one that got most of the coverage in the local press. I have spoken previously in this parliament about the need to complete this road network to ensure the full development of cross-regional links between employment zones and regional centres in western Sydney. There is now an urgent need to complete this road network to allow full development of industry in western Sydney and to ensure that this region benefits economically both during and after the Olympic Games.The existing road network out from Sydney's CBD is radial and lacks direct cross-regional links between employment zones and regional centres. High levels of congestion are increasingly being experienced on the existing freight corridors serving greater western Sydney, including the M4, the M5 and the Cumberland Highway. The capacity of the M4 has already been reached, with 4,200 vehicles at peak hour traffic times. This congestion is threatening the competitiveness of industry and commerce located in greater western Sydney due to insufficient freight movements and longer transport travelling times.If real industrial and commercial development is to be achieved, attention needs to be paid to the movement of freight both within greater western Sydney and to the major terminals at Port Botany and Kingsford Smith Airport and to the rail terminals at Chullora and Enfield. The federal Labor government recognised the western Sydney orbital between the M2 at Seven Hills and the M5 at Preston as part of the future national highway link through Sydney. As such, its funding is the responsibility of the federal government. The western Sydney orbital is estimated to cost $800 million to build to national highway standards with a divided carriageway and graded separated intersections over its 43-kilometre length.The previous federal government, in its May 1995 budget, committed $260 million to commence the construction of the first stage of the orbital between Preston and Cecil Park. Construction was to start in 1996. Additionally, in August 1995, the then federal Minister for Transport, the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), committed $220 million for the second stage of the orbital between Cecil Park and the M4 at Eastern Creek. Construction was to start in 1998. This federal government has reneged on these commitments.In November 1996, the then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), announced that the federal government had set aside only $109 million over five years towards restructuring works comprising environmental assessment, land acquisition and other planning activities. Based on advice from the federal minister at the time, the New South Wales government has included $7 million in the New South Wales budget for the proposed orbital in 1997-98. However, the federal government has yet to announce its funding allocation for this project.The capacity and efficiency of the existing transport network to service commercial vehicles and freight movements affect the completion of the economic development of a region. Greater western Sydney has a population of 1.6 million. It has a gross national product of $35 million and produces 10 per cent of New South Wales's agricultural output, yet it has not one freeway standard cross-regional road.Road transport is a major contributor to the distribution industry. New and expanding industries are increasingly seeking proximity to major road networks to reduce transport costs. Development in technology also leads to companies locating near industries and local markets rather than close to their own headquarters. There is also a need to take into account the likely trends in freight demand based on future industrial growth, changes in freight activity, such as just-in-time centralised distribution, cross-docking, outsourcing of transport and distribution processes, smart warehousing and electronic freighting.The region's business community has identified the completion of what is termed the arterial road grid, consisting of the existing M4, the Cumberland Highway, both Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road, the M2 under construction and the western Sydney orbital, as essential to western Sydney's economic development. Funding for the upgrading of the Cumberland Highway announced in this budget was welcomed, but more needs to be done.I now move on to another area of the budget. Within its budget papers, the coalition government has detailed its exposure to bank borrowing to finance its planned waterfront redundancies. We know, according to the newspaper this morning, that there is some doubt about whether those redundancies will proceed or whether the government will honour its commitment. But, essentially, the government has established its own company, to be called the Maritime Industry Finance Company, MIFCo, which will establish, under Commonwealth guarantee, a loan facility of up to $250 million. These loans are to be repaid by the levies on stevedoring companies of $12 per container and $6 per vehicle. These arrangements allow the minister to authorise payments that are directly or indirectly connected with the reform and restructuring of the stevedoring industry.MIFCo establishes a slush fund to allow the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) to dictate terms to the stevedoring industry, including the employment of non-union labour. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business says the potential benefits of waterfront reform are of vital significance to our national interest. I would ask him for some efficient modelling on this point. Seeing we are talking about efficiency, let him show the Australian public how efficient government ministerial decision making is. If he cannot do this, we should sack all the frontbench.Can the minister tell this House, for every job lost on the waterfront and the loss of the economic multiplier of a waterfront wage, where the new jobs will be created? Will they be on the basis of one for one, or on the basis of one part-time or one casual job for each two jobs lost on the waterfront? Will the real result just be increased unemployment?The minister refers to the position when his government came into office in 1996. Let us look at what had been achieved on the waterfront up to that point. Between 1989 and 1992, under the Labor Waterfront Industry Reform Authority, container rates increased by almost 50 per cent. Ship turnaround times almost halved. Fifty-seven per cent of the waterfront work force took voluntary redundancy. Does the government acknowledge this important fact? It does not. Labor introduced enterprise bargaining which, together with new investment, has contributed further significant gains to productivity in the past couple of years. Because these improvements were negotiated without forced sackings and blazing headlines, the general public may not be aware of the extent of these productivity improvements, but the government most certainly is aware and its silence is to be condemned.Another point to be remembered in this issue is that the government was clearly involved in the planning and implementation of the sacking of Patrick's unionised work force. We do not have to go any further to drive this point home than to recall—as you will recall yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest—that on midnight of 7 April Patrick's operations, with paramilitary precision, moved in with security guards hidden by balaclavas and accompanied by guard dogs. They closed Patrick's ports all over the country and sacked and removed the company's unionised work force. The next day, as you and I will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, at 9.31 a.m.—nine hours and 31 minutes later—the minister was moving the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and he was being patted warmly on the back by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his efforts.This swift action was in clear contrast to the government's refusal to assist other workers who had been retrenched for a range of economic and industrial issues. In some cases, these were very similar to the way the Patrick's work force were sacked. The Cobar miners found that they were employed by an insolvent subsidiary of a wealthy multinational and would not get their entitlements. Where was Minister Reith on this issue? Deathly silent. The Tasmanian employees of food company Simplant discovered that they had been transferred without warning into the employ of one of the world's largest hire companies, Manpower. Where was Minister Reith on this issue? Deathly silent. Another case was the Gilbertson abattoir workers at Grafton, who lost $3 million in entitlements after they were transferred from the parent company to a stripped down subsidiary which went broke. Where was Minister Reith on this issue? Deathly silent. The Woodlawn mine, not far from Canberra, is another example of workers being caused massive distress and a loss of income and entitlements. Where was Minister Reith on this issue? Deathly silent.Another spin-off of the legislation that this parliament needed to consider—and, indeed, the public will consider at the next election—was the intention to use public money to promote political agendas. The government did not have it in its heart to assist the Cobar, Woodlawn or Grafton retrenched workers. The government removed $500 million from aged care and $800 million from child care in its first two budgets. It did, however, feel for the battling consultants, particularly those with Liberal Party connections. The government was prepared to spend $1.3 million of taxpayers' money to pay 11 consultants for one single project to destroy the MUA.The question is now being asked by the Australian work force, as it was in an excellent article by Lester Loble in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 April. Are we seeing on the Australian waterfront today this country's version of the American industrial relations system that Ronald Reagan introduced in 1982 when he fired striking air traffic controllers? I will quote from this excellent article:Reagan sent a signal to American companies that they could follow suit and they did—replacing unionised workers with lower paid employees once virtually unheard of, has remained popular since Reagan's initial sacking.The article continues:Like Chris Corrigan, American companies also declare bankruptcy to avoid existing union contracts and forced workers in the queue with other creditors. On top of losing their jobs employees often get only a minimal redundancy package.Even their earned superannuation benefits have been slashed in some cases. After reorganisation the company can pick up where it left off, but with a new work force.These are only a few quotes from an excellent article which shows the path we are following under this government's deliberate move to make job insecurity the cornerstone of its industrial policy.But even prior to the waterfront, there were many policies of this government that were leading to job insecurity for ordinary Australians, and I will mention some of them. We had retrenchments in the Public Service which, according to the Prime Minister prior to the election, were to number only 2,500 but finished at 77,400—74,900 more than made in a core promise to get public service votes. We had growth in part-time and casual work at the expense of full-time work, with the erosion of award conditions and workers sitting by the phone waiting for the call to perform four hours work. We had the privatisation of the CES and the creation of Employment National and a raft of private employment agencies whose role will be to make a quick buck out of the unemployed.There is the situation of a long-term unemployed husband whose wife is working. He gets no assistance from Employment National and is told, as one of my own constituents was told, to join the queue until they had dealt with the money making customers. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not support that sort of practice, yet this is what ordinary Australians are facing because of this government's three budgets.I will conclude on this point. I think it was the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) who said in his speech on the budget last night that one of his constituents was moved to tears by this budget. I can say that many of my constituents of Greenway were also moved to tears, but they were not tears of joy; they were tears of pain. An example is the lady from Kings Langley, a suburb in my electorate, who rang me because she could not get her child into a local community health service for much needed speech therapy because they had closed their books because of a shortage of funds. The lady's comment was that it is not much good having a surplus if you cannot get adequate health care for your family.I will leave the last word on this budget to a Mr Bill Johnston from Centacare's Social Policy Research Unit, who said:It would seem that in a short space of time we have become a divided nation in wealth, in insecurity of employment, in human cohesion, with an underlying values vacuum in public life.21:01:003743Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—The previous speaker, the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield), had some good points to make, but the note on which he finished was most extraordinary, because the architect of all of those things was his great leader, Mr Keating. Enterprise bargaining was introduced by Mr Keating—and I must say that I thought at first that it would be very good. But it seems to me that it has to moved to become a mechanism by which our wage structures will be driven down to the lowest common international denominator in South America or parts of Africa. But that was introduced not by this side of the House but by the ALP side of the House. And it is something that the electorate will remember forever.The second point he made in conclusion was the MUA and the introduction of scab labour. I am sorry, the precedent was created by your great and glorious leader, only the ex-head of the ACTU, Mr Hawke, and his lieutenant, Mr Keating. They fast-tracked foreign scabs into this country to break the pilots strike. So do not let anyone from the ALP ever have the hide to stand up in this place and condemn us as a coalition for policies which were first introduced by the ALP, the supposed representatives of the employee class in Australia.There are two imperatives that should be looked at continually in this budget, one of which is unemployment. I think that, before the last election, Minister Kemp quoted the real unemployment figures at around 19 per cent. Dr Quiggin, the only economist ever to receive the Academy Of Science prize for Australia, also quoted the figure as being at around 18 or 19 per cent. The chairman of the economics caucus of the ALP, Mr Langmore—and he was sacked for this by Mr Keating—also quoted the real unemployment figures as being at around 19 per cent.But if you have a careful look at the OECD reports on Australia, I think you would agree that the real figure is around 19 per cent. While it has shifted downward somewhat under the current government, there is no doubt that the figure is still pretty close to 19 per cent. So when you have a real unemployment figure of around 19 per cent, you have the most serious of problems.If you have a current account deficit of around $20 billion a year and you reflect upon the fact—and it is a fact I often hear in this place—that the entire accumulated debt of this country up to 1983 had amounted to only $22 billion and we have been running over that, on average, for the last four years, then you have a very serious problem indeed. In fact, the current account deficits of some countries that are now supposedly in trouble are comparable if not inferior to that of Australia.Bankruptcies for the last half year, for which I have figures for September and December quarters of last year, were probably the highest in Australian history, with the exception, I think, of 1991-92. They were certainly among the worst in Australian history. Bankruptcies have been on the rise again, but I do not blame in any way the current government. There is no doubt that these things are an overhang from the last government.But the fact is that bankruptcies are at historically high levels. If you have unemployment hovering in real terms at around 19 per cent, if you have an absolutely critical current account deficit, and if you have on top of that a situation where bankruptcies—the business class, if you like, as opposed to the employee class—are running at historically worst records in Australian history, then you have a very serious situation indeed.There is one statistic on which we are very much out of kilter with the rest of the world. I refer the House to page 114 of Budget Paper No. 1. It is the general government net debt ratio to GDP. While the United States figure is around 45 per cent, the European Union is around 58 per cent and the OECD is around 43 per cent, Australia is way down on a minuscule 17 per cent. So we can afford—and this to many people will be heresy—some more government debt. We are a million miles behind the comparable debt levels of the OECD, the European Union, the United States and Japan. If we are a mile behind, that gives us some latitude in being able to borrow.But our side of politics is constantly terrified of government borrowing because of what the last government did. They borrowed that money. The best example by far in Australian history is the Whitlam government. They borrowed massive amounts. They rolled up budget deficits which were unheard of in Australian history. In 2½ years, they doubled spending by the Australian government. What they spent that money on was socially highly desirable objectives. They spent it on free universities, doubling the pensions and numerous other items of that nature. So one cannot question the social desirability. Whether the country could afford such socially desirable objectives was an entirely different matter. And, of course, it could not. It went into destruction mode. In one quarter, inflation went to an annual rate of 26 per cent. Everything in this country collapsed. There is hardly a graph that you can look at that did not recover after the Whitlam years. The second thing that characterised Mr Whitlam was a 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut in Australia. The people that took the biggest knock were the Australian workers. They were the people that took the brunt of those 25 per cent tariff cuts which saw cheap imports flood into this country and wipe out the manufacturing sector. Here was a man well before his time. Here was an economic rationalist before the term was even conceived. But if he was an economic rationalist, then most certainly the father and the locomotive of that particular philosophy—and, I would say, of that pernicious set of policies—was none other than Mr Keating, the man who took Labor to the worst defeat in Australian history. If our side of the House were to pursue the course and the policies of that period, we could look forward to the same annihilation at the polls. There is a situation in this country where hardly any worker has a secure job. There is hardly a business in this country that has a secure future attached to it. This is not the doing of this government, but this government does have the power to turn this around. It does have some borrowing available to it. If it chooses to borrow that money, then we must hope and pray that it is not spent upon self-indulgence, it is not spent upon social goals which may be very highly desirable; it must be spent on the driving locomotive of the economy, which is farming and manufacturing. As Alan Jones said recently on his television program—I rang him up and went to the trouble of thanking him, and I must say that he also told me that one ex-ALP minister had also rung that morning to congratulate him—there is something seriously wrong in a country where the only two sectors that cannot secure finance are manufacturing and farming. The great Dr Schacht—probably one of the leading economists in this century's history—took Germany out of the period, amongst many other achievements, where they needed wheelbarrows of money to get on a bus. He was sacked by that dreadful man, Mr Adolf Hitler. But before Dr Schacht was sacked by that monster he took control of the German economy, and there was not a single cent that was allowed to go into speculation or predatory practices.It is a great joy to have in the House the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly). In her first speech she referred to the fact that money had to be taken away from people and big corporations indulging in predatory practices. There are great monsters out there such as Woolworths and Coles. It seems to me that these people will never rest until every single small business in this country has ceased to exist and is owned or controlled or operated by them. Money is taken away for predatory practices, and there are numerous scenarios: I will build a bigger shopping centre than you have and yours will be empty and mine will be full; I will build a taller high-rise than you and then yours will be empty and mine will be full; or I will buy this beautiful home and I will pay a hell of a lot of money and we will sell real estate, as the rich people in Australia do, backwards and forwards to each other knowing that the real estate values will continue to climb. That is where Australia's finance is going. It is almost exclusively directed into those areas and was directed into those areas for almost 13 solid years under Mr Keating. We as a government must turn that around. That finance must be redirected into the areas of manufacturing and farming, into the areas of development. I used the German model. I could also refer to the New Deal economists in the United States as another wonderful model. When that was done in Germany, unemployment dropped from six million down to 400,000. Industrial production doubled and agricultural production increased by 60 per cent in the space of four short years. Alan Jones had it dead right. There are two sectors of this economy which cannot access finance: manufacturing and farming. Believe me, I am in a position to speak with very great authority on those areas. If the member for Dawson were to have the Urana dam built in her area, if the Hells Gate dam were to be built in my area and the Ravenshoe dam outside of Cairns, we are talking about $1,500 million a year in income for this country from two relatively small projects. When I say `relatively small', I mean $1,000 million in a budget of $136,000 million. If I am a businessman and someone comes up to me and says, `Would you please give me $1,000 million and I will give you a return of $500 million a year on that investment, with total absolute security,' then I would not let them out the door.Yet that is what we in North Queensland are saying to this government. We are saying, `Just give us that $1,000 million. We will repay it to you within three years and you will also get $500 million a year in tax revenue forever, because the $1,500 million that will be made each and every year out of those farms and their export earnings for this country will have a tax yield upon of it $500 million. But because we will turn land worth $50 a hectare into land worth $5,000 a hectare, we can simply sell that land and pay you back for giving us that money.' In conclusion, there is one wonderful thing in this budget and one wonderful thing about the policies of the current Australian government—that is, the fact that, unlike the last government, when the dollar falls, they do not hit the panic button and race out there to try to artificially prop it up. The argument used by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that this has protected us against some of the problems that have occurred north of us is very right.I must also add that a lower dollar compensates us somewhat for the removal of our tariffs, makes us internationally competitive, gives us some protection against imports and also enables the interest rates to be very low. That is a wonderful thing for Australia. The last government continuously had this absolute commitment to a high dollar for reasons that I do not know. That has been damaging to the economy in itself. Interest rates that soared above 20 per cent were devastating to the economy of Australia. Those things have stopped in this country. For that, people from the electorate of Kennedy must be very truly and sincerely grateful.21:15:003745Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) finds strength in the National Socialists of Germany with their central control of planning and the economy.HX4KATTERMr Katter—New Deal economists did it too in the United States.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Yes, they did it slightly differently. But I guess you must be concerned that the GST will bring back higher prices and higher interest rates to the country as well.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—You can't prove that, Dick.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—We can prove it, because it has occurred in other parts of the world. As I understand economics, it is about models and theory.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—You couldn't put it in the black for 13 years.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—We have been given this budget and we have a budget surplus. That in itself can be commendable, but it hides a picture of misery depicted in the country areas of Australia and particularly in Tasmania. Somewhere along the line we have forgotten there are people tied up in all the statistics and budget numbers. These are the people who have tightened their belts and skimped on their purchases in the forlorn hope that, if they battle through, things might get better. They are being promised that, if we sort out the tax situation, everything will be well and they will be back in clover. We now have a great foreign debt, which is quite unacceptable.While we talk about fiscal consolidation, retirement of debt and budget surpluses, people are asking: what does all that mean to them; why do they have to go through pain; and is pain essential to their living conditions? This is especially so because this government has put some funds back into this budget, having stripped it away in the last two. But it has also wasted a lot, such as the $1.7 billion rescue package for private health insurance which has now had the effect of dropping private health cover to its lowest level—probably historically—at 31.1 per cent of the population.On top of all this, there is the selling of Telstra and the proposed introduction of the GST which will just add costs to ordinary people. The battlers of this country will have less money to spend on the essentials. Why? What is the government trying to prove—that Australia can become a Third World nation, being plundered for its raw materials and its labour being used as slaves?Tasmanians have had enough. They have a state government that is only interested in protecting its skin. Federal Liberal government members are blindly agreeing to cut the heart out of Tasmania and reduce us down even further. The community is saying, `Can't they see what is actually happening to our communities?'Mr Howard will come down to Tasmania in the next few weeks and announce some big projects for Tasmania under the Federation Fund. He will make a big splash on the television for a night when he comes down to announce those Federation Fund projects. But we really want to know when is he going to come down and announce some funds for our health system so that our health system can operate in a decent way? When is he going to announce the funds to assist our schools to be upgraded? When is he going to announce the funds to build and improve the nursing homes in Tasmania? When is he going to find some jobs for our young people who are leaving the state in droves? These are the questions that need answering. It is all very well to have an occasional cake, but we really need bread and butter on a regular basis to sustain ourselves. Our country has grown up believing in mateship and cooperation—when someone is down, you give them a helping hand—but this government does not appear to remember that. It is more `the survival of the fittest' and `user pays'.This train of thought leads me to what we are doing in this country with the liberalisation of trade. We are being told that we must bring down the barriers, reduce our tariffs and remove our subsidies on our industries—in this way we will have the ability to gain by having free trade in other areas. This could be so, but the only problem is that we need to see what is being gained, and that includes some of our producers.Let us look at what is happening to the salmon industry in Tasmania—something very dear to my heart. The World Trade Organisation is insisting that we let in uncooked fish from other parts of the world. If they agree to that in the next round of hearings, then we may well let into the country the fish diseases that come with that fish. How does that help our industry to survive and to grow? How do we gain by having neighbours such as New Zealand send fish to us? It might make for a few more varieties of salmon meat on the supermarket shelves, but is our market that good for them? I would have thought it would make far more common sense for us to join together to develop markets in other parts of the world. What is going to be gained here? I believe that is just another problem that we will have to solve in the long term. Then let us have a look at the pork industry. I am sure you have a few pork growers in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick. In Tasmania we have farmers closing their farms because of the huge amounts of subsidised pork coming into the country. I do not know how many pork farmers there are in the Northern Territory—probably not very many.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—Not too many.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—And there would not be too much grain up there, either, to feed them.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—We have the grain.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—But subsidised pork is coming into this country. The government, through AQIS, is looking at allowing more to enter from the US and Europe. In the US, they grow it on such a large scale that if it comes here it will certainly swamp our markets and drop the prices to a level where our producers cannot possibly compete. We want to know how this is helping the economy at the moment. Our farmers are trying to compete but they are really running up a hill backwards and blindfolded, and they cannot achieve anything in this marketing situation.At the same time, there are developments impacting on other areas of rural produce. It does not make sense for us to try to be better than the rest of the world when the playing field is not level. We really do have to make sure it is level for us to compete on an equal basis. Competition policy only works when there really is true equity in the activity as so many other factors come into play—such as environment, climatic conditions, fiscal policies, trade barriers at different stages of removal—that to have Australia trying to be in the front line is somewhat foolhardy. This is particularly so for our primary producers, of whom I have many in my electorate.Last week I talked to a pork producer who had moved to the state several years ago. He said he was selling up and moving on, that although he was producing the best pork meat that he had ever produced he could not make a go of it under the present situation with the price he was receiving for his product. That is one individual and his capital leaving our state. He said it was a shame that, although Tasmania's product was of great quality and flavour, it could not develop its market niche because the competition was just too great and the market was being flooded by cheaper and, sometimes, very inferior products. It is no good talking about exports without at least being able to develop our domestic market so that a producer can get established and have some income coming in.So what has Tasmania gained from the influx of more pork? It does not seem to have made much difference to pork prices—perhaps they are marginally lower—but if it costs jobs then in the end Tasmania will be the loser. And without jobs, how are people going to buy the pork in the first place? I think this has probably been one of the issues for regional Australia—bigger populations can carry some of these massive changes that have taken place in industries, they can adapt and take other things up, but in lesser populated areas it is very difficult to find something to fill the gaps when you lose either government services or a part of an industry.What is happening, and it is happening to so many of our industries, is that there seems to be a stripping of our assets and our ability to compete. No wonder our state budget looks a sorry mess. No wonder the marketplace cannot pick up the gaps when government—at all levels—is selling off some of our traditional activities. The market cannot move as there is no ability for anyone to make any money, so there cannot be any growth activities at all.Economically, we have very little room to move in Tasmania, and unless we receive our deserved part of the economic pie we cannot help guide or facilitate new industries while keeping our community services in healthy order. It is not as though Tasmania has no exports. We do. One of the healthiest industries in our state is our fast catamarans. These are being sold all over the world. Because they are successful, the company is able to train many Tasmanian youngsters as part of its staff development program; but the company may not stay in Tasmania if there are no incentives for it to be there.Tasmania also has good exports in forestry products, minerals, fine foods, wool products and many other goods. It can compete quite well with these at the moment. But they are not in the business of providing roads, schools, health systems et cetera—that is government's business. We need these healthy industries to generate sufficient funds to look after the other aspects—to create jobs and stimulate the economy.Tasmanians are trying to do all this while being handicapped by an unfair distribution of taxes. There are alternatives and there are ways of doing things better. The sooner we can get on and help these regional people in Tasmania the better it will be and the better I will like it in the future.21:29:003748Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I note that I am following the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Adams), who was speaking about the southernmost part of Australia. I am going to speak tonight about the northernmost part of Australia. And whilst he was speaking about doom and gloom for Tasmania, I can only speak about hope and glory in the Northern Territory. For the Northern Territory, this 1998-99 budget has everything that territorians could expect and I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Lyons can only think about this budget as being something that is not going to help his state of Tasmania.The honourable member, who is leaving the chamber, did not speak about the budget once. He did not speak about appropriation bills Nos 1 or 2. He covered many other issues in the 18½ minutes or so in which he spoke. I inform him that, in the Northern Territory, $133 million was allocated in the 1998-99 budget for defence and that is a very important part of the territory's economy. Over the last three or four years, even under the Labor government, a policy was put in place that defence funding in the northern part of Australia be maintained.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you are a member of the same committee that I am a member of and I say to you that I am very pleased that the coalition government is maintaining a thrust for spending and the development of defence facilities in the Northern Territory. This allocation of $133 million will basically give us $65.5 million for the joint army development facility, stage 2, at an overall cost of $268 million; $2.2 million for the joint development facility, stage 1; $20 million for post-structure review development; $10 million for infrastructure works at Bradshaw station; and $500,000 for the north Australia naval infrastructure, stage 1. At RAAF base, Tindal, major works include the fourth stage of base development with $14 million allocated this financial year as part of an estimated total cost of $31 million.I could go on about the funding levels for the Northern Territory provided by the coalition government. However, the important point to make is that defence spending will be maintained for this financial year. I am quite sure it will be maintained in the next financial year, because that is part of the government's policy.The honourable member for Lyons denigrated his state of Tasmania. Tasmania is a wonderful state and has wonderful opportunities. What the honourable member did not say was that its downturn started when the former premier, young Michael Field, went on the wrong track. He was there for a number of years but he did not develop the state's interests, economy and enthusiasm to maintain a high level of commitment from the citizens of Tasmania. What has happened is that, because there has been a downturn in the economy, people have moved offshore and have returned to the mainland. Tasmania, for its population of 450,000-odd, receives from the Commonwealth per capita funding at a level which is slightly better than the Northern Territory receives. The Northern Territory has, per capita, exports worth probably 1½ times those of Tasmania. I may be corrected on that; it is just an assumption I have.In the budget something like $53 million has been made available for roads in the Northern Territory. I understand, from reading the budget papers, that the $53 million is for the upgrading of the Victoria Highway, the Barkly Highway and the Stuart Highway. When we think of the many hundreds of millions that the Commonwealth spends on roads, $53 million may not seem like a lot of money but, in the Northern Territory, it is. It provides the impetus for the upgrading of those roads which, in turn, gives the tourists that drive from Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland the confidence in knowing that at least the territory's roads are being maintained at a national standard.I am very happy, obviously, that the Commonwealth government has seen fit to make those funds available. Whilst $53 million may not sound a lot of money in terms of the national budget, it is very important. It certainly helps tourism development in the Northern Territory. The territory has the economy in terms of mining, tourism and exports. It also has a very small manufacturing base. Most members of this parliament would be aware that the Northern Territory has a very good record in exporting live cattle to our Asian neighbours—the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and other Malaysian areas. However, with the downturn in the economic base of our Asian region, cattle exports have slowed down a little, and that is to be expected.There may be some debate going on between the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory and the federal Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and some slight disagreement over funding, but I have been advised by the health minister in the Commonwealth government that, in next year's funding, the Northern Territory can expect an increase of 3.8 per cent to its base funding. Whilst there may be some disagree ment between the two ministers, I would support my federal colleague who advises me that the 3.8 per cent is the level of increase in funding that the Northern Territory government can expect.Inflation is a very important factor not just for the Australian community but for the Northern Territory community, because we live in isolation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have visited the Northern Territory on many occasions and you know that the tyranny of distance certainly does have an impact on the cost of living in the territory. I refer to freight and other costs associated with its isolation. The direction of the coalition government in maintaining low inflation rates can only be of benefit to the future of the Northern Territory.We know that we have had the lowest inflation since 1970. Another very important factor to add to inflation is the lowest housing interest rates for the last two decades or more. In building and housing construction in the Northern Territory, there is always that 10 per cent factor. In outer regions of Australia, it costs more to produce and construct residential dwellings. The low interest rates that the coalition government has been able to maintain have become a very important factor.If we look at the economy of the Northern Territory for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, we see that it is probably outstripping most of the economies in the other Australian states. Growth in the Northern Territory is very high; unemployment is very low. Unemployment in Australia has dropped under the coalition government to just under eight per cent for the first time in eight years, but unemployment rates in the Northern Territory have been below six per cent for the last three years. In other words, we can basically say that the economy of the Northern Territory has been very well blessed by the coalition for the last two financial years. It has given us the opportunity to provide infrastructure and confidence to people in the Northern Territory.Unfortunately, because there is a long list of speakers on the government side tonight, we have agreed to limit our time in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 . All I can say in conclusion is that this is a very good budget for the Northern Territory. I believe it is a very good budget for Australia. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) say in question time today—and you and every other member of this place must accept the fact—that it is the first time in our parliamentary history that a government has not increased taxes in any area during its first term. In the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets, the coalition government has not increased taxes. The people of the Northern Territory are very interested in what the coalition's direction in tax reform is going to be before the next election. But the important thing is that, for the last 2½ years, or for nearly three budgets, this coalition government has not increased taxes.In contrast, when the Australian Labor Party came to government it did everything it could to increase taxes which created an impost on our general community in Australia.21:40:003750Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—It is interesting that the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) chided the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) for not talking about Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 . He spent almost his entire discourse speaking as a public relations agent for the Northern Territory. However, he is wrong. The per capita subsidy for the Northern Territory is many times greater than it is for Tasmania. If Tasmania was looked after as well by the federal government, it would no doubt be in a much better situation.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—What about our exports? Talk about our exports.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—The member for the Northern Territory knows very well that the Northern Territory is mollycoddled. To grant it statehood would have been an absolutely bizarre decision. This budget was, I believe, a clever budget. It brought back the allegiance of the self-funded retirees, and they were certainly in need of being looked after. The damage it did in other areas was very well hidden. However, it was intellectually bereft. It did not do anything towards addressing the crucial problems in Australia of unemployment or the current account deficit.When the present government was in opposition, it put great store by the current account deficit and said how important it was that we brought this under control—and it is important. Now that they are in government and the current account deficit continues to rise, it is no longer a matter of great importance. The current account deficit will inevitably go on rising until we get back to a manufacturing base in Australia because 87½ per cent of our current account deficit is as a result of the importation of manufactured goods. Without a return to manufacturing, there is no future for South Australia, Tasmania or Victoria. Victoria is finding that casino-led recoveries do not last forever.The current account deficit has to be addressed and we need industry to do that. This requires an industry policy. But what do we get? Instead we get this policy of rational economics. The great tragedy here is that this is a policy endorsed by both sides of this parliament. Once Paul Keating swallowed it, it was not hard to get the Liberal Party to swallow it. It looks, sounds and, to some extent, feels like neo-classical economics. It sounds and looks like competition. It has nothing to do with competition because it is the policy for big business.Rational economics is not an economic theory; it is a political ideology. It is the ideology of big business, making American big business control world trade when it comes to the baggage of the level playing field. Those are not my words; they are the words of the late Bob Santamaria, and he was absolutely right. It is a political ideology. First, it was swallowed hook, line and sinker by Keating, a man who did this country more damage than most people realise. Then it was followed equally ardently by the Liberal Party.Even Hilmer, in his very foolish report, talked about the level playing field where small business must compete with big business. There is only one end to that, that is, the end of small business. Once small business has gone, there will be no competition, no checks or balances on big business. When governments allow 24-hour trading, they squeeze out small business. As the Chairman of Woolworths said, `We are going to increase our turnover by 12½ per cent. We are going to get this off small business. Let's face it; they have to sleep some time.' Once big business has that, they will not want 24-hour trading. They will cut trading hours back because they will have a monopoly. It is a proven fact world over that big business colludes; it does not compete.What are we faced with? As a result of this rational economic policy, the latest crisis in the rural sector is in the pork industry. How can this be? It is quite simple, Mr Deputy Speaker: ABARE, a government entity, told pig growers that there was going to be a very big increased demand for pork and they should increase production. Of course, it did not eventuate.They then said, `To counter this, we're going to allow in imported pork from Canada.' The truth is that this pork is not coming from Canada; it is coming from farms in the United States—basically, ConAgra farms. It has been shipped across the border to ConAgra processing plants and shipped out here to ConAgra agents. Yet the government—and the previous government would have been no different—is prepared to support multinational interests against the interests of our farmers. Our pig farmers are going to the wall because they followed the dictates of government in the first place and they have got the double whammy of ABARE saying to the government, `Pig imports will amount to no more than 3,900 tonnes.' Mr Deputy Speaker, there were 12,000 tonnes in the first year.We could get some semblance of order, some semblance of a level playing field, if we were to say to the Canadians, `Okay, you've got to bring in the whole pig.' But then we would run into a problem because we would be told, `Oh, we can't bring in the whole pig; it's got to be boned out because we're frightened of disease in the bone.' If there is disease in the bone, how do we know it has not got to the meat during processing?I think we are being far too casual with our quarantine laws. This is an island and it has protection because it is an island. We should be treasuring that. We should not be watering it down at the behest of some economic rationalist theory. If you concede that point, we should still say to the Canadians, `You must bring in the entire pig, or portions of the entire pig boned out.' This would make their exports much less competitive because they could probably get much more in Canada for the loin meat than they could get here. But here, where leg meat is the prime cut, they are destroying our markets very rapidly.It is a real problem. I suggest that because the government has had such a large hand in causing the problem, it should be offering the industry some sort of assistance—either a buy-back program, a pig slaughter program, or putting in place long-term finance so that pig farmers can restructure. It is quite clear that in the eastern states in particular we need to reduce pork meat production, but that is going to take time. You do not just throw your farmers to the wolves.Recently, I attended a meeting at which Senator Crane told the gathering of pig farmers, `You've got to think of the beef industry; we want to sell more beef.' The truth is that the Canadians have cut our beef quota—a quota which we have only ever met once—after we had agreed to bring in their pork. Anyone who believes that anyone buys from Australia because they like us is simply naive. The Canadians buy our beef because they cannot get it better or cheaper anywhere else. That is the only reason why anyone ever buys from us.A lot of this talk about the importance of GATT is greatly overrated. Remember, the French signed GATT at the same time that we did. Within weeks of signing GATT, they were banning the importation of Norwegian fish on health grounds. I am sure there was nothing wrong with the Norwegian fish, but the Norwegians were lucky—they had an opportunistic, high catch of fish. The French were determined that their farmers were not going to be destroyed by this quirk of nature. So they kept that ban on until things got back to an equilibrium and then they said, `We've reviewed the situation and it's okay now.' There was never any hygiene problem, but the French were determined to look after the interests of their farmers. I only wish govern ments in Australia were prepared to do the same—but, of course, they are not, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party.There are other manifestations, such as orange juice. It is quite clear that we have to import half of our orange juice requirements; we simply do not have enough. But we were subjected to dumping from Brazil. It was not Brazilian farmers bringing in orange juice concentrate; it was American agribusiness. They were bringing it in at very low prices. They did not need to do so because they had half the market. But they thought, `We'll bring it in, we'll kill the Australian industry.' They knew that once those trees were pulled out, they would never be planted again.What did the NFF—the National Farmers Federation—say? More correctly, it should be called the `no family farmers'. They said to the government, `Yes, rational economic policy decrees that you do this. There are winners and losers. Kill the orange tree growers; tell them to pull out their trees and plant vines.' It is not so long ago that we were telling them to pull out the vines and plant orange trees; now we are telling them to do the reverse. There is no logic, no long- term thinking there.The truth is that when you kill off these other agricultural industries, you do not help the beef producers, the wool producers and the wheat producers in my electorate one iota. In fact, you impede them because you destroy the overall aggregate agricultural vote. It is not in their interests at all. We saw the performance of the NFF in respect of the wharves in Australia. This is a thing that I find very galling, because we have it put up to us: `This is the problem we have to fix.' They are not the big problem in Australia. We do too much of that in this parliament.We are bringing a bill into this parliament shortly to deny prisoners the vote. Does anyone think this has any material effect on Australia at all—whether or not prisoners vote? Already, prisoners in gaol for more than five years cannot vote. What does taking the vote off them achieve? Why does this parliament waste time on this sort of nonsense? It happens all the time: we fiddle at the edges; we do not address the real needs of this country.I want to talk about taxation. The government says it wants a wide-ranging debate on taxation. The government wants nothing of the sort; the government wants a GST. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) have both said they want a wide-ranging debate, and they set up a committee to receive submissions on taxation. The Treasurer, despite telling this House to the contrary, has told that committee they are not to accept any submissions at all on debit tax. The Prime Minister was asked about the debit tax on radio the other day and he said, `It's no good, it was tried in Sri Lanka and it didn't work.' I thought that was interesting because I had not heard about it. It is used in Australia; it is used by our state governments and it works very effectively. I got on to the library and I asked them to check it. They said they could find no record of it, so I rang the Sri Lankan High Commission. They said, `No, we've never had a debit tax at all. We think the Prime Minister was confusing it with the aggregate tax we have on production—a turnover tax.'A turnover tax is much more akin to a GST than it is to a debit tax, so it is quite clear that the Prime Minister does not understand the concept. The debit tax is quite simple; it postulates this: if you taxed every bank withdrawal at the rate of one-third of a cent in the dollar, you would raise enough money to replace income tax entirely. I said to the Treasurer, `Let's have Treasury look at this; let's have Treasury produce a paper and let them refute this.' I saw a paper recently which said, `Oh, this would be no good, multinationals would avoid it.' Mr Deputy Speaker, multinationals do not pay tax now, but this is a tax that they would not be able to avoid, and they would have very little incentive to avoid it because their money in the bank—which would be tax free—would be worth much more than the tax itself. But it would mean that they would start to pay taxes.Of course we have to broaden the tax base. There are lots of ways you can do that with out a GST. You can get more people working—that will broaden the tax base. You can get the large foreign companies to pay tax—that will broaden the tax base. There are two things the government can do straightaway. We have seen the hyperbole that goes on this place—and it happens on both sides. There is no doubt that when the Fraser government was defeated, Mr Howard, as Treasurer, left a very large deficit which was filled by a basic increase in terms of trade and some very careful husbanding on the outlay side by Senator Peter Walsh.Undoubtedly, this government also was left with a deficit. How did it fix its deficit? Quite clearly it was done with bracket creep. That is how the deficit was fixed—the inflationary effect of taxation pushed people into higher tax brackets. That, I suspect, is one of the reasons that no government has ever really been keen to address the taxation system—bracket creep is such a little luxury for them. We believe the debit tax should be discussed, and it should be on the table for open discussion. If it can be refuted, all well and good. I am happy to stop supporting it if I am convinced that it simply will not work.Of course, the debit tax does have enemies. The tax avoidance industry in this country is worth some $4½ billion a year. They obviously do not like it because they can see their livelihood disappearing. They would have to go and do something constructive. To their credit, I know a lot of accountants who would rather be doing constructive things, but that is one problem. There would not be the need for the very large taxation bureaucracy. We could redirect them to do other things. I do not believe in mass sackings of public servants—I do not see any great point in it—but they could be directed to more fruitful areas. The governments would not particularly like it because the ability to give largesse would be gone. They would not be able to give you tax cuts, because there would not be any to give.The economy and society would be much better off. Imagine how you could contain wages if taxes on a worker's wages constituted one-third of a cent in the dollar. Under a debit tax, the worker would not pay his tax. The tax would be paid by the employer and the worker would pay it when he took his wages out of the bank. This tax is simplicity itself. It works for the states, albeit in a fashion which makes it regressive because they put a top limit on it, but I believe it is a tax that is neat and sophisticated.It also keeps control on government because every day, if necessary, the banks would collect the tax on behalf of the government. Simply by pressing a button, they could tell you to the cent how much money government has collected. Every month we could have the figures on how much money government is getting in taxation. People would be made aware of the level of taxation and, because all the other taxes could be eliminated, it would be very visible. This tax is so simple I believe it deserves to be considered.There is no doubt that this tax would benefit the manufacturing and rural sectors. The debit tax is simple and the cost of collection is very, very small—it falls on the banks. The GST is a value added tax. It is quite clearly a VAT, not a goods and services tax. It is a value added tax. The complications of collecting that are enormous and the cost of that will fall on small business.In the few minutes left to me, I want to say something on industry policy. We hear from the other side inane chants: `You can't pick winners.' Industry policy is not about picking winners. I believe that you can pick winners, but you do not have to. What you have to do is pick general directions, and there are two directions which you should look at: those things in Australia where we have a strategic need, and those things where we have a natural advantage. They are the things we should concentrate on. That is not to say there will not be other areas, given the expertise and the initiative of individual people, but the things that the government should concentrate on are those areas where we have a strategic need or where we have a natural advantage.Industry policy is not something in isolation. It is the arrangement of circumstances to provide the best opportunities for chosen industries to develop, to thrive and to continue. It is not just directions for manufacturing in isolation. It has to be integrated with the influences as diverse as industrial relations, immigration policy, social welfare policy, taxation, environmental policy, research and development policy, foreign aid, government purchasing policy and, above all, government's attitude to its own people and country.I hear people talking about industry and saying, `We've got to have tariffs.' I do not resile from tariffs—there is a case for them; in many cases, a very justifiable case—but there are lots of other things governments can do. In any economy—be it Josef Stalin's Russia or Ronald Reagan's United States—the biggest single customer is the government. If the government does not buy Australian, if the government does not support the Made in Australia program, it is very hard to mount a convincing program to get other people to do it. Just rearranging government purchasing would make a big impact on the viability of Australian manufacturing industry, but this will not be done under the policy of economic rationalism because this policy is not an economic policy, it is a political ideology, and it is the ideology of big business.In conclusion, I want to say something about tourism, because I have a view that the Australia I want for my children is a country with a high standard of living and a high income. For that, we need high levels of education and high levels of training, and we have been going backwards in those areas. Paul Keating, probably more than anyone else, deskilled this country. You simply cannot get skilled tradesmen any more because we stopped training them. This country, which used to produce arguably the best metal tradesmen in the world, now produces drink waiters. While I am sure they are very good drink waiters, there is a limit to how many drink waiters we need.Tourism is low paid jobs, part-time jobs and jobs for women and kids. Across this nation you have the blue-collar worker out of work and his wife out working part-time—and then you wonder why his kids are out of control! The cost of that is never taken into consideration by the rational economists of this world. I agree—I certainly would not let these people do my family shopping.22:00:003754Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—On 12 May the Treasurer (Mr Costello) delivered an enviable federal budget. Australia's economy is predicted to grow by three per cent in 1999, among the highest in the OECD nations. Interest rates and inflation are at their lowest levels in decades, there are more Australians in work than ever before, and we have delivered a $2.7 billion budget surplus without increasing taxes.In Labor's last budget they told us they were going to deliver a budget surplus. I have the budget statements from 1995-96 which were circulated by the Hon. Ralph Willis MP and the then finance minister, Kim Beazley. Let us refer to their budget document and see what they said. In the summary of budget aggregates, in the balances predicted, there is a budget surplus of $718 million. Of course, that was their promise. It was a long way from the truth. Kim Beazley as finance minister left us with a budget deficit of $10.3 billion, a Commonwealth government debt of some $95 billion, high interest rates and high inflation. Labor achieved this economic mismanagement by borrowing money to cover five consecutive budget deficits, seemingly unperturbed about the debt they were passing on to our children.I do not want to go on about the $10.3 billion Beazley black hole, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) let the cat out of the bag. He finally confessed when answering questions with regard to Labor's $10 billion deficit. Mr Evans was interviewed on the Face to Face program, and the presenter said, `Yes, but you also left us with a $10 billion deficit.' Mr Evans said:Yeah, but it was a deficit that could have and would have been corrected.I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was dead right. But it took the Liberal and National coalition government to correct that budget deficit. Labor would never have done it. After five consecutive budget deficits, the interest on Labor's Commonwealth debt was staggering. In fact, in its last budget, Labor spent over $10 billion on interest payments alone. Again, do not just take my word. Refer to Kim Beazley's 1995-96 budget. On page 3.24 `Budget outlays by function', section 14(a) `Public debt interest', the figure on interest repayments alone is $10.076 billion—more than they spent on defence, as much as they spent on education and more than half the amount spent on health. There is not a penny to repay debt, just enough to fix up the interest repayments. We were not paying off the principal; we were just paying off the interest.We are not putting Australia's future on the bankcard—we are not about that—we are getting the Australian economy back in the black. Our government has slashed Commonwealth debt. When Labor left office, Australia's debt to GDP ratio was around 20 per cent. It now stands at 11.2 per cent and is forecast to fall to 1.4 per cent by the year 2001-02. This will reduce Australia's debt ratio as a percentage of GDP to its lowest level in two decades. Lower debt means lower interest payments. By the end of 1998-99, we will have reduced Commonwealth debt by some $31 billion—that is, $31,000 million—reducing our interest payments and the burden of debt on future generations. Repaying this debt will enable taxes to be spent on building a brighter future instead of servicing past debts. Our plan is to reduce government debt from $95 billion when Labor left office to some $9.6 billion by the year 2001-02. To put it another way, 90 per cent of Commonwealth government debt will be wiped out, saving about $8½ billion by my calculations in annual interest repayments.During our term in government, interest rates have been drastically reduced. A decade ago, Labor was crippling small business with interest rates of 20 per cent plus, and many small businesses were paying 24 per cent and 25 per cent on their borrowings. Today, rates have come down to as low as 7.7 per cent for many small businesses—the lowest interest rates for small business since the 1960s.When we came to office, housing mortgage interest rates were 10.5 per cent—they went as high as 17 per cent under Labor; that is what they did to the housing mortgage interest rate area—and now they are down to around 6.5 per cent, saving the average Australian home buyer around $3,800 a year. The measure of housing affordability, the Housing Industry Association index, has improved by some 24 per cent during our term of government alone. Our government has made the great Australian dream even more achievable.Our government has locked in low inflation and low interest rates and is helping small business by creating a climate for job creation. There are now more Australians in work than ever before. This low inflation, low interest rate environment has also benefited home buyers and people who have saved for their retirement.This government has delivered a social dividend for seniors in accordance with our commitment. We have expanded the income test threshold for the Commonwealth seniors card, allowing an additional 220,000 self-funded retirees to receive benefits. In addition, self-funded retirees will now be eligible for the same tax rebates as pensioners, allowing a qualifying single self-funded retiree to earn up to $12,163 without paying tax.For pensioners, our government has honoured our commitment to maintain the average pension benchmark at at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings and has protected it through legislation. Maintaining the pension to this benchmark instead of the consumer price index ensures that pensioners will not be disadvantaged.I am aware of the number of carers in your electorate alone, Mr Deputy Speaker, and this government recognises the valuable role that carers play in our society. Our staying at home package enables elderly Australians to enjoy the benefits of being cared for in their own homes. This $280 million package will see the number of people receiving assistance to stay in their homes doubled to 22,000. Fifteen carer respite centres will be established and the eligibility for domiciliary nursing care benefits will also be expanded.In recognition of the sacrifices made by our veterans, we have made the gold card for health available to an additional 50,000 qualifying Australian World War II veterans. This measure, costing around $500 million over four years, provides veterans with free medical treatment as private patients, choice of doctor and a range of other services free of charge.What sets us apart from the Labor Party is that it is a party of debt and deficit. In short, members of the Labor Party are incompetent economic managers. This government has turned the Australian economy around without increasing taxes. We have reduced government expenditure from 27 per cent of GDP when we took office to 24 per cent by this year. By the year 2001-02, government expenditure will be reduced to 22 per cent of GDP—the lowest level in 20 years. We have kept inflation and interest rates down, increased employment and we are prepared to look at other constraints on the Australian people and the economy—issues demanded by the community and business like tax reform.Despite Labor's $10.3 billion black hole and the effects of the Asian crisis we have stayed on target and met our goals. We have done this without increasing taxes and without running up Australia's debt; we have passed on social dividends and we have delivered a $2.7 billion budget surplus—and that is just the beginning. This is a responsible budget. We are back in the black, we are back on track.22:10:003756Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—When the Treasurer (Mr Costello) delivered the budget speech the other night, and in television interviews afterwards, he sought to make a virtue out of having a surplus on the budget bottom line. Where did that surplus come from? That is the real question. It came straight from the pockets of millions of decent, hardworking Australians.The budget was in surplus because the government has, in three budgets over two years, abdicated its responsibility to provide adequate services in a range of areas including health, education, child care, aged care, job creation and social welfare. The withdrawal of funding is where the surplus came from—it is as simple as that. Millions of Australians who watched the budget delivery on television understood that, and they could not see the virtue in it.Take, for example, Mr Lance Morcom of Birkenhead, a constituent in my electorate. He wrote to me immediately after the delivery of the budget, and I will quote from Mr Morcom's letter. He said:I put forward the following the analogy with which, as a family head, you will be familiar. If your household budget is blowing out, it is very easy to adjust by simply taking the following steps:(1) Slash your wife's housekeeping allowance by 70%;(2) Don't feed your children;(3) Don't provide them with an education; and(4) Don't provide them with any health care.Very soon your budget is back under control but the family you have on your hands are all sick, both physically and mentally.Lance Morcom is spot on—getting a surplus in the household budget is easy if you have no qualms about inflicting pain and deprivation on your family. It is exactly the same with the national budget—a surplus is easily achieved provided the government has no qualms about inflicting pain and deprivation on decent, honest and hardworking Australian families.In the name of creating a budgetary surplus, the government has cut its pound of flesh from over the hearts of the aged, the sick and the jobless, and the withdrawal of government services is causing the greatest hardship to those most in need. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) put it well the other night in his budget reply speech when he said that the Costello surplus is made up of `a million small deficits in the lives of ordinary people'. In short, it comes out of their pockets and into the Treasurer's. As Lance Morcom said, it is easy to get a surplus provided the breadwinner has no qualms about inflicting pain and deprivation on a family.To make matters worse, the government has sacked the breadwinner as well—80,000 Public Service jobs have gone; 80,000 pay packets have been taken from workers' pockets. In my home state of South Australia, the situation is all the more desperate because the Brown and Olsen governments have also sacked tens of thousands of South Australian public sector workers. It is therefore not surprising that the South Australian economy has stalled. Confidence has left the state, along with so many of our young people, and the jobless queues remain depressingly long.In my electorate of Port Adelaide, the situation has been made worse by the failure of the budget to make a decision on the construction of the additional two Collins submarines. This is a very important industry for the local economy. It was won by a South Australian Labor government when there was a federal Labor government in Canberra. Who knows what the future is under the coalition governments which are currently in South Australia and in Canberra?The delay has caused concern to the workers, their families, other businesses in the local area and to related industries which rely on the Submarine Corporation for their livelihood. This problem has been compounded by the government's failure to award to South Australia even one dollar of funding under the roads of national importance program, a failure that will cause further delay in the construction of the much needed river crossing in Port Adelaide.That delay means that heavy industrial traffic will continue to rumble through the streets of Port Adelaide, inefficiently delivering a dividend in transport, hampering local efforts to breathe life back into the heart of the port and its suburbs, and not completing what would be one of the best transport hubs in the world. For the record, South Australia is the only state to miss out on funding in that program. On both these matters, it is clear that Premier Olsen and federal Liberal members have failed to convince their federal colleagues of the importance of these projects for South Australia.With national unemployment set to rise again, according to budget forecasts, this is the time to remember the candid comment early in this parliamentary term of the then employment minister, Senator Vanstone, that the government would not deserve to be re-elected if it could not get the jobless rate down. Well the jobless are still looking for work, and the outlook is not getting any brighter. Youth unemployment has risen dramatically during the term of this government, and the situation for the over-45s is becoming increasingly tenuous.How does the government treat the unemployed? It basically treats them with contempt. It has closed down all the CES offices so that the jobless may now have to pay a private agency to help them find work. It has revived the `dole bludger' tag to add insult to injury.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—What rubbish! Name one. Tell the truth.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Why don't you make a comment on the GST and education expenses, Minister? No answer. We are very quiet on that one, are we? The government has decreed that the unemployed must accept a job offer, irrespective of where the job is located, or face losing the unemployment benefit. Young people who are hit by this measure will be forced to move away from their families. If a person finds a job in an area of lower employment but later becomes unemployed, the unemployment benefit will not be payable for 26 weeks.Those who are on a pension and studying part time will no longer get the full rate of the pensioner education supplement. The $30 a week cut will especially hit sole parents who are trying to improve their chances of getting a job. Also, $10 million in social security benefits is being taken away from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sole parents.Over the last three budgets, the government has made serious cuts to social security support for those most in need and for those who are most vulnerable. With despair all around, you would think that the government would take the opportunity in the budget to put some money and some care back into the community, to provide some opportunities for employment—that word `opportunity'—and opportunities for education, or perhaps to provide some easing of the hospital waiting lists, or a legion of measures that would offer some hope to the millions of Australians harmed by its funding cuts. But, of course, that was the furthest thing from its mind.The government was determined to build a surplus, and to build it for one purpose only: to pave the way for a goods and services tax. This is the tax that Mr Howard said we would never ever have. That was his specific promise to the electorate, that the coalition would never ever introduce a GST. Yet, just two years later, he says the coalition will introduce a GST, if re-elected. Who ever said this Prime Minister was honest?It is beyond dispute that the people who are most disadvantaged by a GST are those on fixed incomes, like pensioners and other beneficiaries. The aged, in particular, will be hard hit by a GST. The Howard government's new nursing home fees already bleed the aged of up to $27,000 a year. They must now also face the prospect of a GST increasing those fees by a further 10, 12, 15 per cent—who knows what it will be. It is no wonder that this budget was so roundly condemned by Aged Care Australia, the peak body looking after the interests of the frail aged.Others to be severely disadvantaged will be those living on incomes from fixed investments like superannuation. Self-funded retirees got a few sweeteners in the budget, but I wonder how they will feel when the value of their nest eggs are devalued overnight by a GST of 10, 12 or 15 per cent, or whatever the rate will be, and this is despite having paid tax on the income when it was earned in the first place.It is obvious that the government will put the so-called sweeteners into the package but, after the sweetness has gone, the tax will remain. Such sweeteners can never adequately compensate people for having to pay a tax on everything they purchase in the future. The deficiencies of the tax package will become especially noticeable when the rate at which the GST is applied is increased in the future. An increase is very probable—in fact, very likely. In 23 of the 26 countries with a GST, the rate has been increased by as much as 15 per cent.Households on average or below average incomes will also be subject to disadvantage under a GST. Any number of reputable studies of the GST overseas clearly show that lower income households pay a greater share of their income in the tax than higher income households. Low income households spend most of their income on the basic necessities of life—food, rent, power, clothes and transport—all of which will be subject to the new GST. The GST also puts a considerable onus on small business proprietors. They will become the unpaid tax collectors, at an unrebated cost to each of about $7,000 per annum.The other side of the coin, of course, is that the GST amounts to a tax cut for big business and for wealthy individuals and households. Is this the reason why so many of the coalition's traditional supporters are pressing for the introduction of a GST? It is clear now that tax is going to be a core issue at the next federal election, and we know that because the Treasurer put it there in this budget. The phrase `goods and services tax' might not feature in the document, but the rest of the arithmetic in it proves its existence. In this way, the GST is like the black holes in the universe. The bottom line in the debate about the GST is that the greatest burden falls on those least able to pay. Coincidently, they are the same ones who have been most hurt by the government's funding cuts of the past two years.In particular, the GST will do nothing to create economic growth and jobs. There is no correlation anywhere in the world between the form of tax applicable and economic performance, as any examination of the European tax structures and economic indices clearly demonstrate. For example, in regard to private savings, Belgium has the highest household savings rate, and its neighbour, the Netherlands, the lowest. But guess which one has the GST. They both have it. The Treasurer, in his budget speech, talked about the importance of private savings to this nation's economy, but this is evidence that the government's focus on tax reform has nothing to do with economic considerations and everything to do with political gains.Further, other things more critical to economic performance than the tax structure are also being ignored. Perhaps the member who is following me in this debate might want to talk about the current account deficit, for example. I recall the current Treasurer before the last election harping on about the current account deficit and foreign debt. Do you remember that truck? But, in government, debt does not seem to matter to him anymore. It is not that the problem has been fixed—in fact, it is worse than it has ever been.The current account deficit has doubled in the past two years to $31 billion, and Australia's national debt is now $26 billion more than at the time of the last election. One of the reasons why it has not been fixed is that the government has paid so little attention to industry policy, which is where more jobs must be found. It is not that the government does not recognise this fact. It promised 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing by the year 2000, but that target already is more than 100,000 jobs behind schedule because insufficient attention has been paid to getting the settings right for business and for a productive manufacturing industry.Evidence of this is that demand for research and development funding has plummeted and investment growth and export growth are both predicted to fall. The textile, clothing and footwear industries assistance package promised by the Prime Minister has not eventuated and this is putting thousands of jobs in this country at risk.In this climate, national debt is continuing to rise, further dampening economic growth and jobs growth. Yet the government seems to take little heed of this serious situation, preferring to run its three-prong ideological agenda of tax, race and union bashing. That agenda involves imposing a GST to favour their corporate mates at the big end of town, stirring up race tension by the disgraceful amendments to the Native Title Act and causing chaos on the waterfront by conspiring to illegally remove working people from their rightful place of work simply because they were members of a union. Talk about a manufactured dispute.This is the agenda the government intends to go to the election on. It is an ideological agenda which can only cause further dislocation, insecurity and strife for the average, decent, hardworking household. What this government needs to do is to cease its ideologically driven agenda and get on with governing in the interest of all Australians. Do members on the other side remember that phrase? Governing in the interest of all Australians?JT4BAILEYMrs Bailey—Something you know nothing about.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—That means getting economic growth going again, because it is only growth that will create jobs in this country. It is growth; it is not a damn GST, for God's sake. It is clear that after three budgets and two years of government, the economy is effectively worse off now than it would have been under Labor's growth program outlined in our last budget before the 1996 election.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Back in the black, back on track.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—You two will not be here after the next election, so why don't you keep a little quiet. If these policy settings remained unchanged, the budget would have been broadly balanced this year in any case, without the unnecessary hardship caused to so many people by this government's attack on the wellbeing of average Australians.Labor's emphasis on growth leads to the creation of jobs and that directly affects the welfare and wellbeing of working people and the community in general. Labor's approach means more people in work and, for those in work, it means greater job security. The coalition's approach has opened up worrying gaps in Australian society. It has sought to divide the nation with its predatory race-based legislation and its shameful and illegal attack on waterfront workers.To sum up, Lance Morcom, my constituent from Birkenhead, got it right. The government has achieved its surplus on the backs of ordinary working Australians and the coalition has withdrawn financial assistance from those in our community who are most in need and called that windfall its budgetary surplus. On budget night, the Treasurer went looking for praise, but it was a cheap, harsh, sleight of hand which did not fool Lance Morcom and did not fool the majority of the electors in my electorate. I expect it will not fool many other Australians either.22:26:003760Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I welcome the opportunity to follow my colleague the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) in the appropriation debate.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Again.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Yes, again. The member for Port Adelaide, whose constituent Lance Morcom is unknown to me, provides me with just the springboard I want in this appropriation debate. Lance Morcom—as I said, unknown to me—allegedly said that, if the government had achieved a surplus, and indeed it has achieved a surplus of $2.7 billion, then it achieved it on the backs of ordinary Australians, if that is quoting the member for Port Adelaide correctly.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Exactly.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Thank you. If that is the case, then the member for Port Adelaide has, out of his own mouth, put the most powerful case for tax reform that has been put in this parliament, because he is indicating that, unfairly, we collected the money necessary to pay-off a budget deficit.CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—A budget deficit left by Labor.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Absolutely, it was left by Labor. It was $10.3 billion.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Talk about the current account deficit.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—The member for Port Adelaide, unable to resist one punch on the nose, wants another. So he said, `What about the current account deficit?' He runs the nonsense they are so fond of opposite of suggesting that, in some strange way, the Australian economy is less able than ever before to face its current account deficit.This government never came in pretending that in one term it would rub out the problem of the current account. Never. We said we would get on with servicing the debt and we did. In fact, within one term, within two budgets, we have paid off that ALP debt. When it came to the current account, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) quite rightly said that, if you are dealing with a current account with an international debt that is running in excess of $200 billion, it will not disappear overnight. But what the member for Port Adelaide quite mischievously has failed to tell the House and failed to tell the people of this nation is that, in just two years, not only has this government paid off the debt we inherited from his team; in addition to that, we have placed this nation in a better position to service the current account than it has ever been before.When we came into government, our capacity to pay off the debt was soaking up something like 20 per cent of our gross domestic product. Tonight, it is soaking up something like 14 per cent because we have set all of the indicators in place so that we are in a better position, we are generating more, we have a greater gross domestic product and we are better able to pay off the debt and meet that current account obligation. If we stay on course, as we intend to do, in spite of the Asian crisis, that figure will fall by the turn of the century to 12 per cent—something you ought to applaud, not criticise. If, as we intend to do, we sell off the residual amount of Telstra, that debt will fall to one per cent—the sort of figures not seen since the member for Port Adelaide was a boy in nappies. But have we had one measure of commendation from those opposite? No, of course not. Only the usual, convenient primary school teacher jibes often run by the member for Port Adelaide.Debate interrupted.Adjournment376010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.376022:30:003760Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I have previously referred to the malevolence of this government in respect of members of unions and their families. Tonight I re-emphasise that the government's debacle on the waterfront has been engineered and orchestrated from this building. The international scandal of Dubai, the international scandal of confrontation and dissension on the waterfront, was similarly engineered from this building. It was all done in association with ministers' offices in this building.But what is so anti-Australian and what is so malevolent has been the support given to Mr Chris Corrigan's actions in contriving the bankruptcy of his own companies so as to enable him to avoid his companies' obligations towards his own companies' employees. His actions have been applauded, aided and abetted by this government. The proposal to provide financial support for enforced redundancy payments to sacked employees was rushed through the cabinet in this building—without written submission but by verbal submission—months before the events of 7 April 1998.But for Mr Corrigan the process of bankrupting one's own companies to avoid liabilities to creditors, including employees' entitlements, was not new. He had earlier form. In June 1994, as chair of Australian Stevedores Ltd, he put forward a similar proposal in respect of the company's Darling Harbour operations. What he proposed on that occasion was to strip the assets out of the Darling Harbour activity, including any provisions that could be removed into another company, let the losses mount up to the value of the residual assets, and then bankrupt the activity so that there were no funds to meet any creditors, including workers' entitlements, using the corporate veil to isolate such liabilities to the bankrupt activity. Fortunately, that proposal that he advanced was rejected by the other shareholders of the company, but it went on to create a deadlock among the shareholders of the company.Earlier than that, we can look to the report of the inquiry into Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd and Petroleum Distributors Pty Ltd that was conducted from January 1981 to 25 May 1981 by J.W. von Doussa, Q.C., the inspector. I quote from paragraph 6.35:The evidence of Corrigan about his communications with IEL if correct, discloses a conflict of interest and a disregard for confidential information to an extent that I consider to be improbable.The report goes on to say:. . . it seems that there was at no time any contractual relationship between Elders GM and BT (leaving aside the underwriting agreement made on 30th March 1981). Further on—and I am just taking selected parts because of time—the report says at 6.37:I consider the evidence shows that the story that IEL was BT's—that is, BT Australia's—principal has been concocted after the event.It concludes at the end of that paragraph:In my opinion, the credit memorandum which the BT witnesses say was executed shortly after the date which it bears is also a sham.Honourable members can look further into that case and see more detail of that report at the time. But this government's debacle on the waterfront has cost this nation hundreds of millions of dollars—all based on the pretext of improving productivity.I have said on a number of occasions in this place and in the Main Committee that waterfront costs are a small proportion of the total costs of getting product to market. That is the major reason why shippers do not take much notice. But the Productivity Commission report on page 34 itself says:Waterfront charges make up a small proportion of importer's and exporter's freight bills . . . Usually they are less than half of land-side charges and less than a quarter of the blue water freight charge.With respect to country dry cargo, the lift-on charges are 0.5 per cent of the total transport charge. In the case of city reefer charges, the lift-on charge or stevedoring charge for containers is 0.4 per cent of the total transport charges. These are readings from the government's own report about which they have bragged so much. But it exposes this whole charade, it exposes this disaster, as the contrivance it has been on the part of the government.376122:35:003761Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—On 18 May, federal sport and tourism minister, the Hon. Andrew Thomson MP, visited my electorate of Paterson to meet with tourism operators and to announce formal details of the Commonwealth's promised $1 million infrastructure and marketing support package for the burgeoning Hunter tourism industry.The $1 million to the Hunter Regional Tourism Organisation highlights the focus of the infrastructure funding towards building up the region as a legitimate stopover for international visitors and improving our growing reputation as a haven for quality and affordable eco-tourism pursuits.For instance, the $100,000 to the Nelson Bay Dolphin Interpretative Centre expands the federal government's support of the soon to be constructed visitor information and tourist centre to a figure now of $300,000. And a similar $100,000 allocation to the Shortland Wetlands Centre is proof that eco-tourism is now very much the financial lifeblood of the Hunter tourism industry.An investment of $250,000 will be made in the Hunter Wine Interpretive Centre planned for construction at Cessnock, $50,000 will be allocated to improve visitor information signage to better promote our region's tourist attractions, and a collective $160,000 initiative to bolster international and domestic marketing is a strategic pointer that the local tourism industry, whilst now generating close to $1 billion annually for the Hunter economy, has to become more visitor friendly. Tourism in the Hunter is not only well on the way to becoming one of our region's largest industry sectors; in terms of employment, one in nine of all new jobs created in our region now come directly under the tourism umbrella.It was with great pleasure that I joined the minister and Great Lakes Mayor, John Chadban, in officially opening the long-awaited Bulahdelah Tourism and Visitors Information Centre. The opening of the Great Lakes Tourism Centre at Bulahdelah in effect completes the network of promotional centres in areas like Pacific Palms, Dungog, Hawks Nest, Nelson Bay and Maitland that now exist right around the Hunter, aiming to facilitate further exciting growth in tourist numbers and spending.These centres have correlated a strong upturn in recorded growth in tourism spending within each community as holiday makers and passing travellers become successfully armed with the critical information of what to see and do and where to explore. With the majestic waterways of Port Stephens, the Barrington wilderness area, our world famous wineries and the unique physical environment, the Hunter has all the hallmarks to rival Cairns and the Top End as a must see regional destination for the some four million international visitors that annually travel to Australia. So, Mr Speaker, you can understood why I was disappointed and a little dismayed to be alerted to comments made by the shadow tourism minister, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), in the Illawarra Mercury last Wednesday, attributing the Hunter tourism industry to nothing more than possessing a bunch of wineries for prospective travellers.RH4KERRMr Kerr—You won't have to worry about that for much longer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison was warned earlier today. I suggest he remain silent.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—The shadow minister, in comparing the respective potential of the Hunter, Blue Mountains and Wollongong tourism industries, assessed the exciting developments in the Hunter tourism sector in the following light. He said:Our colleagues in the Hunter seem to be able to get their act together a little better and all they've got is the wine industry and not much else.I have come to ask the question: how out of touch is Mr Martin when it comes to the Hunter tourism industry? What makes the shadow minister's foolish and silly remark all the more stunning is that Mr Martin was actually in the Hunter region on the day of the release to speak on—guess what? The potential of Hunter tourism. Yet Mr Martin flippantly dismisses and ignores the real growth and genuine dynamism that is occurring right across the Hunter on the tourism front, even when it is happening right under his own nose. When Stephen Martin visited Port Stephens last week, did he stop to think that over 700,000 visitors travelled to the water wonderland in the past year alone?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I trust the member for Denison has a point of order that is relevant.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I do, Mr Speaker. I would ask the member to refer to the member for Cunningham by his correct title.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—When the member for Cunningham visited Port Stephens last week, did he stop to think that 700,000 visitors travelled to the water wonderland in the past year alone? Further, why would he dismiss out of hand the nationally acclaimed Morpeth Jazz Festival, which attracted thousands of visitors to Maitland's tourism jewel over the weekend?The bottom line is that the member for Cunningham is a disgrace. I call on all members in the Hunter, including the member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), who sits on his hands at all times, to do something about this and not suffer the embarrassment of having a shadow minister for tourism who does nothing for the Hunter.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The standing orders in the—LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—Are you sober enough tonight?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will remain silent. The member for Watson.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—We should not allow people to attack each other like this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson will resume his seat. There is no point of order.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—Mr Speaker, the Labor tourism minister, the member for Cunningham, Steve Martin, certainly does not mince his words when it comes to the Hunter tourism industry, an economic centre now injecting some $856 million into our regional economy annually and creating one in nine of all new Hunter jobs. (Time expired)376322:40:003763Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I think it is necessary to put a number of things on the record in relation to the background to my resigning from the Liberal Party and becoming the eighth Independent in this parliament. The first thing to say is that at an FEC meeting of the Liberal Party some four weeks ago I moved a motion which was supported by the FEC meeting to bring ahead the preselection for the seat of Dickson. It is important to bear that in mind, given what the boffins are now saying. I wanted that preselection brought forward so that it could be contested.I believe I would have won preselection for the seat of Dickson. If there is anything more clear to demonstrate the fact that I wanted it brought on, it is the motion that I moved and a letter that was sent. I have a letter in my possession which was sent by Mr Goebel, the State Director of the Liberal Party—that is, Greg Goebel—in which he said that the preselection would be delayed until after the state election.The moment I resigned today, the preselection is on this Sunday. With that in mind, perhaps I am a little naive, but I thought that when you had correspondence with someone you did not reveal it unless you asked for that person's consent. I think that is a very naive view to have. I suppose as a lawyer you do not reveal correspondence unless you say, `Look, do you mind if I send a copy of that?' But, in my naivety, I did not think that that would happen. But it did happen in the case of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). I want to read that letter because this is my letter of resignation. It states:As of today I hereby resign my membership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. My decision has been reached after long hours of reflection and discussion with those close to me. My experience of the party system has led me to the irresistible conclusion that it is impossible to properly represent the interests of my constituents as a member of the parliamentary party.Just as with native title, child support and now a proposed GST, my input as a representative of the constituents of Dickson is ignored as decisions have already been made. You expect me to jump and rubber stamp them as directed. It is intolerable. This is in the context of having lost confidence in you as leader of the parliamentary party. You seem unconcerned about the real people out there whose views you find an irritation. The interests of my constituents come first and foremost and nothing will deter me from doing my duty to them.Yours sincerelyTony Smith Bearing in mind the fact of my preselection, this is the response. It states:Dear TonyI have your letter of resignation. The reasons given for your resignation lack conviction.That is the first point—`lack conviction'. I moved in this House from that position over there last week an amendment to government legislation. How could that demonstrate more conviction to what I believed in? That was my reason. One of my reasons was child support. I did not vote on native title. How could you demonstrate more conviction for what you believe in by walking out of the House and not voting? Let me have enough of that sort of humbug. The letter continues:They are not borne out by the facts.Well, that remains to be seen. It continues:The criticism you have made I reject.Fair enough. I have no problem with that. After all, I did not attack the Prime Minister in any personal way in my letter. This is a political letter. But here is the beauty:I think that most people know the real reason you have resigned.Isn't that nice! Doesn't that betray something about Mr Howard that perhaps the people of Australia have not seen before? That is the question I ask. What does he mean? Does he mean my preselection or does he mean my personal life? Is that what he is saying? Is that what he is really saying? Well, why doesn't he say it?376422:45:003764Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Today I would like to mention something that happened to me at the weekend, and that was a visit to one of my local churches, the Church of the Good Shepherd in Plympton. It was an invitation to have a look at some houses that they had just built for lower income families. I went along expecting to see the normal couple of houses that are usually built in this situation and, indeed, that was so. They were very attractive houses that were built on church land—on disused basketball courts.But what was absolutely fascinating about these houses is that they had been built with the environment in mind and with the retention of water for landscaping. I will read to the House from the booklet that I was presented with at the church service of dedication. I was so intrigued by the whole concept that, while I was there, I missed out on my following appointment that Sunday. I have yet to give my letter of apology to the second appointment. You have the church and then behind the church is vacant land. These houses have been built on the side, and more will be built behind the church.The brochure states:Roof runoff from buildings at the church site passes to a gravel-filled trench beneath a garden/lawn area, formerly a disused basketball court. The collected water evaporates through the gravel, providing moisture directly to the roots of the shrubs and grass above.So you are not watering from the top, you are using evaporation to keep your grass and shrubs alive. It goes on:The landscaped area requires minimal, if any, supplementary irrigation.. . . . . . . . .. storm runoff from the roofs is diverted by a network of pipes to storage in the gravel-filled trench;. in periods between storms, vapor generated form moist gravel—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Moist gravel.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I am reading from this and I think they mean `from moist gravel'—enters the soil and vegetation root mass above . . . HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—What is moist gravel?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I suggest to the members across the table who find this funny that they might learn something from this project and might be able to suggest this type of thing in their own neighbourhoods, because it is an excellent project. To laugh at it portrays something about the members across the floor.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will remain silent. I would suggest that the member for Hindmarsh continue her remarks.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The brochure goes on:. this "passive" system of irrigation is more efficient than conventional watering and, normally, requires little, if any, mains water application. . in large storms, short-term ponding occurs . . . this water then feeds slowly to the underground gravel layer;. in very large storms, runoff exceeding the pond capacity . . . passes to the street drainage system;. the overall scheme reduces downstream flooding, uses storm runoff to provide catchment "greening" and places little to no demand on mains water supply.If this type of development were used in all the suburbs, then we would have less problems with our water. It is especially relevant to South Australia and to the city of Adelaide, with South Australia being the driest state in the driest continent and Adelaide being the head city in South Australia.In conclusion, I make mention of the people who participated in the dedication service and who bear responsibility for this project: Rev. Barry Davis, the parish priest who bears the greatest responsibility; church elders Mr Harold Bates-Brownsword and Mr Jack Stirling; the architect, Rodney Barrington; the builder, Mr John Twelftree; and Mr John Argue, Associate Professor of Water Engineering, University of South Australia. I congratulate the city of West Torrens and the state government for their contributions and I also mention the Most Rev. Ian George, the Archbishop of Adelaide, who fully supported the project from beginning to end. It is a most excellent project, and I would commend it to the sneering members of the opposition across the table.376522:49:003765Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The fatuous phantom from Paterson strikes again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member might well direct his remarks to matters of substance and not personalities.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—By accident, I happened to be in the chamber to hear it.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that he withdraw those comments.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You are an idiot.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the honourable member takes offence, it is up to the member for Newcastle to withdraw them.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Is he offended by being called `fatuous'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw the remarks.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Which words?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member withdraw his remarks?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I made a statement. Which ones are we talking about?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the honourable member does not withdraw the remarks, he can resume his seat and I will call the next member. Are you going to withdraw the remarks?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I want to clarify—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will withdraw the remarks.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—If the member is offended, I withdraw.CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The opposition whip referred to the member here as `an idiot'. I do not think that is parliamentary. He might like to withdraw it.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I thought it was an epithet that suited him. Nevertheless, I would like him to withdraw the remarks he made about me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think that you might start by withdrawing your remarks. Have you done that?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—No, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you withdraw the remark against which the member has taken offence?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Absolutely not because it is not unparliamentary—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, it is not unparliamentary to suggest that the member for Newcastle—LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—The member for Newcastle is an idiot. I agree with you on that.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—The member for Paterson is an idiot. In this chamber people have never—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member withdraw that remark?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, if you want us to withdraw the remark that someone is an idiot—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member withdraw the remark?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I am happy to withdraw the remark that the member for Paterson is an idiot because that is a reflection on the just idiots.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson will withdraw the remark unconditionally—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Unreservedly because it is unreservedly a reflection on just idiots.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. I suggest that the member for Newcastle might address his remarks to the adjournment and not personalities.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—In the remarks from the honourable member for Paterson earlier, the comments he made about the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) were disgraceful and should have been taken exception to—LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—And absolutely true.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—When points of order were taken, Mr Speaker, you made no attempt to protect the member for Cunningham, which should have been the subject of a substantial motion rather than the half-smart way—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has been in this House long enough to know the way the proceedings work.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I am speaking in the adjournment debate this evening—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will address your remarks to the adjournment debate.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—which can be about anything I wish to speak on, as I understand the parliamentary rules, and which I am doing, thank you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If you are going to address personalities I would suggest that you be very careful—FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Why did you not stop the member for Paterson then?LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to standing order 76, which states:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think members on both sides need to have that in mind. I believe that, in the present instance, we are not progressing the debate constructively in any way. I would suggest that, if the honourable member for Newcastle has a speech to make in the adjournment debate other than about personalities, he might commence.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I will continue but I will also ask you, after tonight, to look at tomorrow's Hansard and look at the remarks of the member for Paterson and then reflect on your ruling on me.The member for Paterson came into office when the Hunter Regional Tourism Organisation a week before had received $10 million. He is here boasting about $1 million three years later. The organisation has been gutted since he has been in office. The same member is trying to laud the contribution of this government to the electorate and to the Hunter itself. The wharf that he goes game fishing off, which cost $4 million, was all contributed by the Labor government. That is one project alone that is four times the value of what he is boasting about.The more interesting point is that, just the week before last, the budget papers showed that the $6 million the member for Paterson announced last year—to be spent at Williamtown airport—was not spent. So what does he do? He announces it again this year. He recycles it. Great environmentalist—he recycles $6 million from last year's budget which was not spent—not a word said—and he spends it again next year. Terrific! He is great at recycling. Mr Speaker, I think you will find the people of Paterson will recycle him back to the Central Coast, where he came from. He was a blow-in from the Central Coast and he will be recycled back there. (Time expired)376722:54:003767Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—The town of Warburton in the Upper Yarra region of my electorate has had a close association with the Seventh Day Adventist Church for over 75 years. Gradually over those decades the church has extended its presence by establishing—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want the member for Paterson now to withdraw two allegations. Earlier, when the member for Newcastle was addressing—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his place. The honourable member for Paterson will withdraw the allegations made—he will rise in his place and withdraw the remarks unconditionally.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Which allegation was that, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw his imputation unconditionally.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—I withdraw.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. After all of these antics I would like to get back to talking about some serious issues in my electorate. The Seventh Day Adventist Church in Warburton has established the Sanitarium Weetbix factory, Signs Publishing Company, an aged care facility, a hospital, a school, a church and has provided accommodation to numerous families. This has represented not just a huge financial investment, but an enormous social and spiritual commitment to Warburton. Importantly, it has provided secure employment to hundreds of local people. The church has in fact become synonymous with the name Warburton.Just over 12 months ago, Sanitarium, one of the companies owned by the church, made a commercial decision to close its Weetbix factory and ended not just a 75-year history, but also the working careers of over 80 employees. The effect on the town of Warburton of that decision, while still being felt by the community, was not as devastating as many feared because locals were determined that the town would survive by promoting its natural assets.Just as this small town was beginning to pick itself up, it was dealt another body blow. The church announced that it proposed to sell both the hospital and the health care centre, putting the jobs of 140 people immediately at risk, but also putting a huge question mark over the future viability of the town. Many locals contacted me from various different sections of the community. Many were distraught at the news. I actually said that they had two choices. They could simply wait and see what happened and who bought the facilities; or they could, as a community, pull together and convince the church that at the very least they should allow the recent restructuring of the hospital time to take effect and, preferably, to convince the owners that it was not in the best interests of either the church or the local community to sell the complex. We chose the latter course of action.Together with Steve Brown, a local businessman, Gary Hendrick and Monica Keane from the Upper Yarra business association, I organised a public meeting at the hospital. I must also give credit to Bob Manners, the CEO of the hospital, and his staff for the tremendous support they gave us and for allowing us to hold the meeting at the hospital. I encouraged those present at the meeting by telling them that, if the community were to save the hospital, then the community had to pull together and work in partnership. It gives me enormous pride and pleasure to be able to tell this House that out of that meeting came support from SDA, non-church members, management and staff of the hospital and health care centre, business people, community groups and the local media—people from all walks of life and all political persuasions.From that fantastic support base we formed a strategy committee consisting of Steve Brown, Gary Hendrick, June Ivey, Jan Cameron, Monica Keane, Keith Johanson, Maurie McQuade, Graham Sweet and yours truly. We organised a petition and within one week we managed to collect just over 2,000 signatures. My office faxed those to a conference that was being held on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of last weekend. Pastor Bob Manners, in his capacity as CEO of the hospital, actually asked the conference to withdraw the facilities from sale. And I am pleased to report that, as a result of our action and the pressure that we managed to bring to bear, the church leaders have actually withdrawn those properties from sale.I want to place on record my thanks to all of those members of the community who acted so spontaneously. I know that the commitment they brought to this issue and the pressure they applied to the hospital leaders is going to stand the community in good stead. I intend working with those community members and, in turn, bringing pressure to bear on government to provide public beds to assist in the future viability of that hospital.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:003768House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices3768The following notices were given:Mr Williams to present a Bill for an Act to provide for financial assistance in connection with the implementation of the national firearms program, and for related purposes.Mr Somlyay to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 May 1998, namely: Erection of signage on and around the headquarters of the National Archives of Australia at East Block.Documents3768The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 May 1998:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Proposals 1998 Nos. 9, 10, 11.Customs Act—Instrument of approval 1998 No. 5.Answers to Questions in Writing3769The following answers to questions were circulated:3769(Question No. 2610)26103769McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Is the Minister able to say which (a) countries and (b) international organisations recognise Taiwan as the Republic of China.3769Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:With regard to (a), as of 1 May 1998, Taiwan had diplomatic relations with 27 countries. At that date, all 27 countries listed below recognised Taiwan as the "Republic of China": Republic of Malawi; Kingdom of Swaziland; Republic of Senegal; Burkina Faso; The Republic of Gambia; The Republic of Liberia; Sao Tome and Principe; The Republic of Chad; The Holy See; Belize; The Republic of Costa Rica; The Republic of El Salvador; The Republic of Guatemala; The Republic of Honduras; The Republic of Nicaragua; The Republic of Panama; The Republic of Paraguay; Dominican Republic; Commonwealth of Dominica; Grenada; Republic of Haiti; Saint Christopher-Nevis; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; The Republic of Nauru; Kingdom of Tonga; Tuvalu; Solomon Islands.With regard to (b), since 1971, when the People's Republic of China (PRC) joined the United Nations, Taiwan has not had membership of any UN bodies under any name.According to Appendix 3—Table 3 of the 1997-98 Yearbook of International Organizations, Vol 2, Taiwan was in 1997 a member of 908 non-governmental international organisations and 11 intergovernmental.The yearbook identified those latter organisations as: Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organisation; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); Asian Productivity Organisation; International Cotton Advisory Committee; International Institute of Refrigeration; International Office of Epizootics; International Seeds Testing Association (*status pending); International Sericultural Commission; Pacific Basin Economic Council; Southern Africa Regional Tourism Council; World Trade Organisation (*application pending).Taiwan now participates in intergovernmental and non-governmental international organisations under several different names. These include "Taiwan", "Taiwan, China", "Taiwan-China", "Taiwan (China)", and "Taiwan, Republic of China". Taiwan participates in APEC and the Olympic Games under the name "Chinese Taipei". Taiwan has applied for WTO membership under the name, "Customs Territory of Taiwan, P'enghu, Kinmen, and Matsu". In addition, Taiwan participates in some international conferences and meetings as "China (Taipei)", "China-Taipei" or "Taipei, China".3769(Question No. 2627)26273769Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What are the total equivalent full-time student units by discipline category for (a) commencing students and (b) all students for each higher education institution for each year from 1996 to 2000 undertaking (i) higher degree research, (ii) higher degree coursework, (iii) other postgraduate, (iv) undergraduate and (v) enabling studies.3769Kemp, 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:Information on enrolments for 1996 and 1997 is at Attachment A. The information at attachment A includes data on commencing students for 1997 only. Comparable information for commencing equivalent full-time students for 1996 and 1997 is unavailable because of a change in reporting requirements.I am not prepared to make available the information requested for the period 1998 to 2000 since this information can only be obtained from universities' profiles documentation, which is confidential. Release of individual universities' planning projections by discipline category may be detrimental to the interests of the institutions concerned. This approach is consistent with the practice of all previous Ministers with respect to this data.ATTACHMENT ACOMMENCING STUDENT AND ALL STUDENT PLACESCommencing StudentsA1: 1997 Pages 1-15All StudentsA2: 1996 Pages 16-30A3: 1997 Pages 31-45ATTACHMENT A11997 Commencing Students (EFTSU)InstitutionHigher Degree ResearchHigher Degree Course-workOther Post-graduateUnder-graduateEnablingTotalEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUNon-English Languages—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University001016026Macquarie University10541120131Southern Cross University000808University of New England32151290149University of New South Wales3421310140University of Newcastle20057665University of Sydney10411520167University of Technology Sydney00220022University of Western Sydney0422870113University of Wollongong00224026Deakin University323646087La Trobe University11111550168Monash University18212330254Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology30014017Swinburne University of Technology36546060University of Ballarat00021021University of Melbourne23782872327Victoria University of Technology00235037Central Queensland University00012012Griffith University0291550166James Cook University30335041Queensland University of Technology03266071University of Queensland7442740289University of Southern Queensland04719030Curtin University of Technology00133034Edith Cowan University00148049Murdoch University10961071University of Western Australia30386092Flinders University of South Australia3001680171University of Adelaide4001330137University of South Australia00622028Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania10177079Batchelor College000142135Northern Territory University00316019 Australian National University9041700183University of Canberra01143045Australian Catholic University00022022Total110511753,027293,392Behavioural Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University017612120290Macquarie University2434781640300Southern Cross University0001202122University of New England4721990131University of New South Wales92811480186University of Newcastle1012141470183University of Sydney1719844910611University of Technology Sydney08732047University of Western Sydney48512510341University of Wollongong131911440177Deakin University1515893560475La Trobe University823374330501Monash University1914302950358Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology311191970230Swinburne University of Technology140461780238University of Ballarat30221300155University of Melbourne2638613140439Victoria University of Technology916342280287Central Queensland University00060060Griffith University1623156450699James Cook University9061484167Queensland University of Technology0062180224University of Queensland301893370394University of Southern Queensland79161396177Curtin University of Technology1428171380197Edith Cowan University52801830216Murdoch University62601850217University of Western Australia191291585203Flinders University of South Australia2941710186University of Adelaide61201300148University of South Australia439391560238Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania11401170132Batchelor College0007714Northern Territory University001447061Australian National University410079093University of Canberra0522741102Australian Catholic University0401360140Total3015837637,067258,739 Other Social Studies—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University490544790627Macquarie University271433220366Southern Cross University10222340248University of New England711222230263University of New South Wales3376704450624University of Newcastle1512642348504University of Sydney3147496468781University of Technology Sydney13311524811318University of Western Sydney1648303790473University of Wollongong6931470165Deakin University1233364800561La Trobe University1910205610610Monash University2124505700665Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology1928773040428Swinburne University of Technology40480088University of Ballarat1001581160University of Melbourne4121223161401Victoria University of Technology92465040561Central Queensland University1001595165Griffith University2024374540535James Cook University95828411317Queensland University of Technology1727406890773University of Queensland4238385240642University of Southern Queensland00324027Curtin University of Technology162283321379Edith Cowan University1514534309521Murdoch University237122890331University of Western Australia24151716207Flinders University of South Australia111313260351University of Adelaide2123683370449University of South Australia928965180651Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania1911222630315Batchelor College00013637Northern Territory University30269276Australian National University4722312430343University of Canberra30211602186Australian Catholic University1552200231Total56967897912,01214114,379Other Humanities—Based on Actual Student StudiesCharles Sturt University413203022341Macquarie University5562284800625Southern Cross University5002532260University of New England2634544232539 University of New South Wales312632970357University of Newcastle1825444275744University of Sydney86562484901,015University of Technology Sydney13543127117386University of Western Sydney1526557488708University of Wollongong81552300258Deakin University1619394790553La Trobe University292315391602Monash University6067727746979Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology73471380195Swinburne University of Technology22221470173University of Ballarat10089292University of Melbourne1184465635736Victoria University of Technology53292910328Central Queensland University98216367249Griffith University128175140551James Cook University711018231231Queensland University of Technology3024508940998University of Queensland7522447620903University of Southern Queensland4143037287507Curtin University of Technology183626055342Edith Cowan University13224374179592Murdoch University2413403646447University of Western Australia28232795317Flinders University of South Australia17103620380University of Adelaide154273368390University of South Australia3204648717573Australian Maritime College000202University of Tasmania110123054296Batchelor College000404383Northern Territory University839501585Australian National University5318292770377University of Canberra1381341911464Australian Catholic University1228604260526Total85156787213,93697817,204Education—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University6521614130632Macquarie University1525832600383Southern Cross University213811520248University of New England33552812110580University of New South Wales143537760162University of Newcastle129418322124534University of Sydney414493295428University of Technology Sydney26831983820689 University of Western Sydney2265204798251,114University of Wollongong11361202020369Deakin University25531143170509La Trobe University19302741550478Monash University241174052760822Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology1424371960271Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat054925180University of Melbourne9111342144501,070Victoria University of Technology2670540132Central Queensland University87755350625Griffith University15371094930654James Cook University824112722317Queensland University of Technology3710143962801,205University of Queensland2241292470402University of Southern Queensland43213922637438Curtin University of Technology4616482140324Edith Cowan University141725055018849Murdoch University913135840241University of Western Australia322112110157Flinders University of South Australia1138122920353University of Adelaide16831091University of South Australia10581185640750Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania440443918505Batchelor College003393779Northern Territory University186561340214Australian National University000000University of Canberra17151311591323Australian Catholic University111202835070921Total6241,4235,0279,70716816,949Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University20183570377Macquarie University4629192220316Southern Cross University10031870200University of New England19182050233University of New South Wales11232147530911University of Newcastle315147072579University of Sydney11839571,30901,523University of Technology Sydney301374610511University of Western Sydney332485236594University of Wollongong25764190457Deakin University215426100678La Trobe University420177169784Monash University938137587879 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology461396320700Swinburne University of Technology2501127218326University of Ballarat130221480183University of Melbourne1466331,27101,456Victoria University of Technology2720284918574Central Queensland University101322233269Griffith University288355530624James Cook University44473139377Queensland University of Technology386108392895University of Queensland1115211,21201,349University of Southern Queensland4031452154Curtin University of Technology192317090761Edith Cowan University13053220340Murdoch University215182705319University of Western Australia734195984698Flinders University of South Australia32004290461University of Adelaide64015330598University of South Australia263144777527Australian Maritime College00234036University of Tasmania44393130369Batchelor College000011Northern Territory University165511311150Australian National University73132290306University of Canberra231112282265Australian Catholic University0091060115Total1,47825052217,44919619,895Mathematics and Statistics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University2631122125Macquarie University5205700577Southern Cross University1221000105University of New England01379083University of New South Wales82344980533University of Newcastle6913270123421University of Sydney7714920507University of Technology Sydney110933020370University of Western Sydney03439043440University of Wollongong4321400149Deakin University3451940206La Trobe University3062185232Monash University9575470568Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology912123180351Swinburne University of Technology112424734307University of Ballarat20165169University of Melbourne9595381562 Victoria University of Technology24132960315Central Queensland University12414466217Griffith University1214410445James Cook University2538119110Queensland University of Technology85142462275University of Queensland8884090433University of Southern Queensland39420934259Curtin University of Technology23824615274Edith Cowan University96213355205Murdoch University1141570163University of Western Australia6592891310Flinders University of South Australia3201010106University of Adelaide14322610280University of South Australia20421622244Australian Maritime College00020020University of Tasmania10253056Batchelor College00003939Northern Territory University00123832Australian National University9262140231University of Canberra44231220153Australian Catholic University00052052Total1461542138,8214909,824Computing and Computer Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University218312990350Macquarie University42102210237Southern Cross University0541282139University of New England11312770103University of New South Wales1468312310344University of Newcastle231219611224University of Sydney11202180231University of Technology Sydney134192505309University of Western Sydney012203893424University of Wollongong1112132080244Deakin University126243320374La Trobe University21461951245Monash University2021865320659Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology5481222870462Swinburne University of Technology7381613450551University of Ballarat001579195University of Melbourne18191550183Victoria University of Technology07453840436Central Queensland University06323480386Griffith University2973640382James Cook University20293097 Queensland University of Technology1113676662759University of Queensland11971130140University of Southern Queensland24202667299Curtin University of Technology68482149285Edith Cowan University3115640923502Murdoch University1391640177University of Western Australia224980106Flinders University of South Australia0111190121University of Adelaide9241230138University of South Australia39725778669Australian Maritime College000505University of Tasmania5091420156Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University01573180Australian National University3011140118University of Canberra0251481156Australian Catholic University00097097Total1703711,0098,6597410,283Visual and Performing Arts—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University01041860200Macquarie University000404Southern Cross University5011870193University of New England56546062University of New South Wales315134460531University of Newcastle1261237817425University of Sydney4622184360522University of Technology Sydney011178797University of Western Sydney112535460585University of Wollongong1221110116Deakin University92102580279La Trobe University131273050346Monash University146162860322Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology4611264210504Swinburne University of Technology20063065University of Ballarat0021150117University of Melbourne6401386211824Victoria University of Technology00195096Central Queensland University00071071Griffith University214355800640James Cook University11041700185Queensland University of Technology8403180330University of Queensland187111420178University of Southern Queensland03470077Curtin University of Technology7532120227 Edith Cowan University01674181442Murdoch University01181083University of Western Australia1406950115Flinders University of South Australia2101040107University of Adelaide65912917166University of South Australia131203650390Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania15023030320Batchelor College000303Northern Territory University106960103Australian National University3193119511259University of Canberra300980101Australian Catholic University02075077Total3812223988,107549,162Engineering, Processing and Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University00010010Macquarie University12126030Southern Cross University00073073University of New England1666019University of New South Wales7371343070485University of Newcastle40501450190University of Sydney621042010277University of Technology Sydney1423232070267University of Western Sydney5231772189University of Wollongong2652880121Deakin University173758085La Trobe University60460070Monash University6824274480567Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology9325254220565Swinburne University of Technology2628572220333University of Ballarat21652061University of Melbourne81783470443Victoria University of Technology1711251210174Central Queensland University0331850119Griffith University733980111James Cook University924850100Queensland University of Technology2112312141279University of Queensland67432620336University of Southern Queensland3031690175Curtin University of Technology1511242340284Edith Cowan University40770081Murdoch University101129041University of Western Australia33212100246Flinders University of South Australia21033036University of Adelaide284161560204 University of South Australia23961380176Australian Maritime College2001120114University of Tasmania1102980111Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University00014014Australian National University150028043University of Canberra05030035Australian Catholic University000303Total7732793745,03836,467Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University000000Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University000000University of New England000101University of New South Wales333124052University of Newcastle2513760105University of Sydney11210262100358University of Technology Sydney00016016University of Western Sydney000000University of Wollongong000000Deakin University000000La Trobe University100001Monash University2710441450226Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology023308Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne911785360229Victoria University of Technology00130031Central Queensland University00010010Griffith University100001James Cook University5535018Queensland University of Technology000000University of Queensland39652830333University of Southern Queensland000000Curtin University of Technology912053083Edith Cowan University105006Murdoch University9407020University of Western Australia3202810115Flinders University of South Australia110258071University of Adelaide417131360197University of South Australia000000Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania100708Batchelor College000000 Northern Territory University100001Australian National University18040022University of Canberra030407Australian Catholic University000000Total457692281,16501,919Nursing and Other Health Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University115182020236Macquarie University168131083Southern Cross University31191096University of New England720151320174University of New South Wales1226711056University of Newcastle8181082790413University of Sydney437212975901,003University of Technology Sydney3301062230362University of Western Sydney117210673714940University of Wollongong463311040202Deakin University21631203520556La Trobe University18202424850765Monash University317842140318Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology14142203300506Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat22231420169University of Melbourne718136670228Victoria University of Technology222962360356Central Queensland University68211460181Griffith University614522890361James Cook University01516860117Queensland University of Technology1524953816521University of Queensland192942970187University of Southern Queensland1551250136Curtin University of Technology16181103230467Edith Cowan University151322700318Murdoch University003306University of Western Australia45730046Flinders University of South Australia963582170347University of Adelaide71699210143University of South Australia7251502930475Australian Maritime College000707University of Tasmania00171710188Batchelor College00040141Northern Territory University11532039Australian National University01020012University of Canberra11236830132Australian Catholic University20662970365Total2699152,0717,2762110,552Administration, Business and Economics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University313916571401,021Macquarie University1728029854201,137Southern Cross University961465840700University of New England121251263350598University of New South Wales4253515392101,651University of Newcastle16211880642903University of Sydney342041171,16801,523University of Technology Sydney183312211,24071,817University of Western Sydney12153341,55501,754University of Wollongong1034464900580Deakin University8461797510984La Trobe University10291111,32701,477Monash University55732541,71602,098Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology1812916078801,095Swinburne University of Technology17441225350718University of Ballarat02302300262University of Melbourne2723215785211,269Victoria University of Technology133213095501,130Central Queensland University363813760523Griffith University21702789501,013James Cook University631113971446Queensland University of Technology121662111,43301,822University of Queensland30120701,35401,574University of Southern Queensland10149354210615Curtin University of Technology16811315631792Edith Cowan University1341696374764Murdoch University961134300513University of Western Australia2075674853650Flinders University of South Australia612134280459University of Adelaide561305690665University of South Australia115717880561,057Australian Maritime College012134056University of Tasmania712585580635Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University31942381265Australian National University14391264970676University of Canberra1138424042497Australian Catholic University01112290241Total5183,5673,56526,2626833,980Built Environment Excluding Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University000202Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University000101 University of New England101622039University of New South Wales9913010320University of Newcastle2001620164University of Sydney125044800186University of Technology Sydney323373390402University of Western Sydney15781094University of Wollongong000303Deakin University6271150130La Trobe University000000Monash University000101Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology161111900218Swinburne University of Technology00054054University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne514321990250Victoria University of Technology0081340142Central Queensland University00015015Griffith University000202James Cook University112206Queensland University of Technology117512611331University of Queensland9421530168University of Southern Queensland000606Curtin University of Technology108910100Edith Cowan University00024024Murdoch University014005University of Western Australia10193095Flinders University of South Australia000000University of Adelaide50564074University of South Australia36141540177Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania44079087Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University00014014Australian National University000000University of Canberra7001260133Australian Catholic University000303Total971272502,77113,246Agriculture—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University11210990122Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University000404University of New England1291239072University of New South Wales100203University of Newcastle000000University of Sydney244131390180University of Technology Sydney030609 University of Western Sydney11671260150University of Wollongong000000Deakin University022249073La Trobe University3010890102Monash University023005Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology000000Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat007007University of Melbourne490292420320Victoria University of Technology000000Central Queensland University000000Griffith University200002James Cook University11776031Queensland University of Technology000000University of Queensland35151890230University of Southern Queensland000101Curtin University of Technology30109013116Edith Cowan University000000Murdoch University000707University of Western Australia210325049Flinders University of South Australia000909University of Adelaide254221370188University of South Australia00015015Australian Maritime College3027012University of Tasmania1611056083Batchelor College000189Northern Territory University000000Australian National University64648064University of Canberra001304Australian Catholic University000000Total233451791,389211,867ATTACHMENT A21996 All Students (EFTSU)InstitutionHigher Degree ResearchHigher Degree Course workOther Post graduateUndergraduateEnablingTotalEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUNon English Languages—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University001235047Macquarie University217173670412Southern Cross University00031031University of New England76363190368University of New South Wales101123770400University of Newcastle8001597174 University of Sydney441323570416University of Technology Sydney00372075University of Western Sydney5642700285University of Wollongong20276080Deakin University52431810231La Trobe University81244290462Monash University59546580726Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology600960102Swinburne University of Technology01191120132University of Ballarat00030030University of Melbourne7420438331971Victoria University of Technology01189091Central Queensland University00043043Griffith University62133850406James Cook University5261040117Queensland University of Technology01161240141University of Queensland25345990631University of Southern Queensland06567078Curtin University of Technology00381084Edith Cowan University01111220134Murdoch University0051360141University of Western Australia201112080240Flinders University of South Australia9022420253University of Adelaide17033740394University of South Australia00271073Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania9012020212Batchelor College001101223Northern Territory University10538044Australian National University21553560387University of Canberra0151350141Australian Catholic University00171072Total3621152917,859208,647Behavioural Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University446474800577Macquarie University51861197250981Southern Cross University0002243227University of New England1119142230267University of New South Wales265015300607University of Newcastle39405120555University of Sydney5011991,00501,183University of Technology Sydney00037037University of Western Sydney899115850703University of Wollongong222813180369Deakin University333212989401,088 La Trobe University6631757240896Monash University5368457980964Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology816204650509Swinburne University of Technology2141884890639University of Ballarat43321960235University of Melbourne917310594901,218Victoria University of Technology2116414370515Central Queensland University0001390139Griffith University3644391,17101,290James Cook University240334212381Queensland University of Technology0214370440University of Queensland993891,02401,170University of Southern Queensland2311124473496Curtin University of Technology3269473540502Edith Cowan University133714940545Murdoch University173903090365University of Western Australia333254594533Flinders University of South Australia263004370493University of Adelaide191502970331University of South Australia535813080429Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania191403020335Batchelor College001112234Northern Territory University1018920111Australian National University271502360278University of Canberra024211710216Australian Catholic University01433770394Total8821,15097816,9984420,052Other Social Studies—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University1868991,07301,258Macquarie University8731193801,057Southern Cross University1224301436University of New England2432455990700University of New South Wales110631351,14401,452University of Newcastle38196892641,019University of Sydney12099651,244271,555University of Technology Sydney50404772810875University of Western Sydney545434856111,009University of Wollongong232843870442Deakin University3767691,36001,533La Trobe University9743441,43101,615Monash University121120951,80902,145Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology436912880201,042Swinburne University of Technology67212470281University of Ballarat143224673509 University of Melbourne10832431,02911,213Victoria University of Technology3211478130903Central Queensland University80043413455Griffith University5445331,35301,485James Cook University2214107572805Queensland University of Technology1741251,35201,435University of Queensland12684431,27601,529University of Southern Queensland03569077Curtin University of Technology3225299811,085Edith Cowan University30251211,13401,310Murdoch University5421223910488University of Western Australia7219125156624Flinders University of South Australia7034137700887University of Adelaide5439906100793University of South Australia43701481,50801,769Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania3046346720782Batchelor College000111425Northern Territory University4731862202Australian National University16328296960916University of Canberra174303390390Australian Catholic University31656190643Total1,7821,2861,58229,93915534,744Other Humanities—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University132496434693Macquarie University175147411,24401,607Southern Cross University7025573569University of New England7155831,20831,420University of New South Wales695381,00401,134University of Newcastle35159443721,357University of Sydney300115241,91602,355University of Technology Sydney28905550645724University of Western Sydney817461,270701,501University of Wollongong514164960594Deakin University5825801,70601,869La Trobe University11413551,68111,864Monash University212126911,997132,439Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology226594580545Swinburne University of Technology13153460365University of Ballarat7011756189University of Melbourne27513751,72932,095Victoria University of Technology1620314690536Central Queensland University1525534077462Griffith University7037211,20701,335James Cook University415942259536 Queensland University of Technology4032931,56901,734University of Queensland22338841,84402,189University of Southern Queensland1714458711181,065Curtin University of Technology2611656375681Edith Cowan University536549382031,254Murdoch University9013457630911University of Western Australia94477324841Flinders University of South Australia73858770963University of Adelaide61414918101,007University of South Australia84485867151,019Australian Maritime College000303University of Tasmania340859736675Batchelor College001384685Northern Territory University3151614813213Australian National University110283198501,154University of Canberra133288646914Australian Catholic University16521677100945Total2,5501,1251,38033,6051,18239,842Education—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University281092121,12701,476Macquarie University5672891,12201,339Southern Cross University16331253060480University of New England9410840159601,199University of New South Wales6165634400629University of Newcastle4380216964241,327University of Sydney121131201,07121,345University of Technology Sydney3812031594701,420University of Western Sydney52661211,745172,001University of Wollongong52711376320892Deakin University661242991,13601,625La Trobe University1021253013890917Monash University9432839450401,320Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology3863805880769Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat434351843260University of Melbourne1261399641,29602,525Victoria University of Technology166781710271Central Queensland University1734476580756Griffith University64811031,11901,367James Cook University3558255990717Queensland University of Technology1182175611,92202,818University of Queensland70903241310615University of Southern Queensland1210217662754971Curtin University of Technology12444904110669 Edith Cowan University52412551,65602,004Murdoch University25201582260429University of Western Australia6712145170241Flinders University of South Australia3890225370687University of Adelaide133716030213University of South Australia351591301,47901,803Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania319311572017976Batchelor College00579174258Northern Territory University4416582970415Australian National University000000University of Canberra41221294240616Australian Catholic University221542891,47101,936Total1,8152,9446,64225,59429137,286Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University154308200869Macquarie University166304194201,179Southern Cross University30034340467University of New England633115520629University of New South Wales30977271,88502,298University of Newcastle55551,1651171,347University of Sydney35266673,00203,487University of Technology Sydney1081291,09011,220University of Western Sydney11053191,24751,434University of Wollongong1031391,05801,183Deakin University7519881,62801,810La Trobe University1630581,67291,902Monash University39717392,72383,184Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology9434321,83401,994Swinburne University of Technology6141153527638University of Ballarat70143600381University of Melbourne47616283,30803,828Victoria University of Technology13316501,05101,250Central Queensland University310547420530Griffith University10629281,04501,208James Cook University1371219933121,113Queensland University of Technology11326101,39931,551University of Queensland5185543,33503,912University of Southern Queensland0003372339Curtin University of Technology764561,50901,645Edith Cowan University29067040739Murdoch University1085297250867University of Western Australia24513291,52721,816Flinders University of South Australia87021,11801,207University of Adelaide157891,03401,208 University of South Australia8517261,240201,388Australian Maritime College00261063University of Tasmania18712251,00401,228Batchelor College000123Northern Territory University3551226018330Australian National University333244169601,094University of Canberra433114622521Australian Catholic University0132530257Total5,00753390843,42324850,119Mathematics and Statistics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University0173144326Macquarie University12411,08301,100Southern Cross University6961493173University of New England7231570169University of New South Wales412658980970University of Newcastle1135497124640University of Sydney511628790948University of Technology Sydney7141668524746University of Western Sydney04482524857University of Wollongong11443530372Deakin University817294900544La Trobe University18114225447Monash University469271,29401,376Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology29244490501,002Swinburne University of Technology973658562699University of Ballarat0141243132University of Melbourne41458430893Victoria University of Technology141465900624Central Queensland University77731077408Griffith University8466700688James Cook University50320230240Queensland University of Technology249466264709University of Queensland43468800933University of Southern Queensland1151445753540Curtin University of Technology971351915563Edith Cowan University198525962353Murdoch University6072090222University of Western Australia161085471582Flinders University of South Australia4112270233University of Adelaide42325250572University of South Australia1031045817498Australian Maritime College00039039University of Tasmania6001680174Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University10138848 Australian National University30074020439University of Canberra12682250251Australian Catholic University0601150121Total55424334917,96951619,631Computing and Computer Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University722726040705Macquarie University374134610515Southern Cross University21372240246University of New England412151680199University of New South Wales12142513400545University of Newcastle82439912425University of Sydney22122920317University of Technology Sydney2558497245861University of Western Sydney045248132884University of Wollongong2525215010572Deakin University14269091101,041La Trobe University218713952497Monash University124351491,97602,284Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology2712112979401,071Swinburne University of Technology18661615250770University of Ballarat32281613197University of Melbourne374392200300Victoria University of Technology4161018710992Central Queensland University017687314820Griffith University241787210770James Cook University3221740181Queensland University of Technology28431211,45121,645University of Queensland4215244770558University of Southern Queensland444360413668Curtin University of Technology3810764898621Edith Cowan University10189377125917Murdoch University75192810312University of Western Australia26343110344Flinders University of South Australia91112140235University of Adelaide117102310259University of South Australia719961,10411,227Australian Maritime College000909University of Tasmania192234070451Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University1351661176Australian National University21012210243University of Canberra18723460427Australian Catholic University0001240124Total6417761,70219,2117822,408 Visual and Performing Arts—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University01925040525Macquarie University1001220123Southern Cross University13052950313University of New England12881280156University of New South Wales9210181,14301,344University of Newcastle1311301,044181,116University of Sydney12816421,15501,341University of Technology Sydney22134306453University of Western Sydney4043121,24001,335University of Wollongong311242830330Deakin University264486950773La Trobe University373286430711Monash University8922267630900Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology10312421,22001,377Swinburne University of Technology2001900192University of Ballarat3052520260University of Melbourne14211791,76202,084Victoria University of Technology0031380141Central Queensland University0001040104Griffith University277491,22901,312James Cook University320293930454Queensland University of Technology282457360793University of Queensland27863190360University of Southern Queensland0252000207Curtin University of Technology317106390669Edith Cowan University031157370783Murdoch University0211340137University of Western Australia25021950222Flinders University of South Australia13162730293University of Adelaide1971146313513University of South Australia02518870913Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania298177480802Batchelor College000088Northern Territory University1011990201Australian National University27124764315744University of Canberra1003290330Australian Catholic University0302010204Total96640166020,4366022,523Engineering, Processing and Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University00035035Macquarie University141341230154Southern Cross University00097097University of New England571670098 University of New South Wales280207991,58502,171University of Newcastle74306930770University of Sydney1703561,12901,340University of Technology Sydney5966521,60601,783University of Western Sydney14644291454University of Wollongong8126175220646Deakin University152192380274La Trobe University21073240352Monash University17452401,50101,767Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology233128741,69602,131Swinburne University of Technology7238931,01621,221University of Ballarat51101820198University of Melbourne19515111,46601,687Victoria University of Technology5028445190641Central Queensland University84423120366Griffith University2627163740443James Cook University26132250255Queensland University of Technology6823381,14711,277University of Queensland2409693901,194University of Southern Queensland21056070633Curtin University of Technology52302494301,049Edith Cowan University60151760197Murdoch University10878087University of Western Australia931578580973Flinders University of South Australia2201300134University of Adelaide879175750688University of South Australia7420167760886Australian Maritime College3002770280University of Tasmania25312680297Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University20032034Australian National University32002220254University of Canberra21471350158Australian Catholic University000505Total2,23078470121,310425,029Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University000000Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University000000University of New England200002University of New South Wales207612896401,260University of Newcastle8015123520459University of Sydney453175471,50802,183University of Technology Sydney01541280147 University of Western Sydney000000University of Wollongong000000Deakin University000000La Trobe University000000Monash University11755196700861Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology107668091Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne2875720690801,458Victoria University of Technology00132033Central Queensland University00040040Griffith University1066013James Cook University234427330127Queensland University of Technology000505University of Queensland17131231,22401,449University of Southern Queensland000000Curtin University of Technology312272960356Edith Cowan University000000Murdoch University19902390267University of Western Australia71776830768Flinders University of South Australia66073210394University of Adelaide21035231,13801,406University of South Australia001304Australian Maritime College000101University of Tasmania3011250129Batchelor College000909Northern Territory University000000Australian National University000000University of Canberra00031031Australian Catholic University00160016Total1,7515134618,784011,509Nursing and Other Health Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University244226740742Macquarie University214015270184Southern Cross University23222941322University of New England1327503610451University of New South Wales5576122560399University of Newcastle19169891601,049University of Sydney81582002,26402,603University of Technology Sydney19641886960967University of Western Sydney251212161,719152,096University of Wollongong37112563090514Deakin University271362081,24001,611La Trobe University49553761,99802,478Monash University22522265760876 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology45186551,01401,300Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat15224350463University of Melbourne4043403860509Victoria University of Technology12221797590972Central Queensland University714202300271Griffith University1418477410820James Cook University1142440250Queensland University of Technology19771681,33501,599University of Queensland8030338240967University of Southern Queensland0333330339Curtin University of Technology50252041,16601,445Edith Cowan University342279040967Murdoch University00520025University of Western Australia112091200160Flinders University of South Australia20152577310960University of Adelaide108760094University of South Australia14471971,49301,751Australian Maritime College00025025University of Tasmania611286460691Batchelor College00054256Northern Territory University0221090113Australian National University000000University of Canberra59272390280Australian Catholic University7212392801,060Total7501,5802,99524,0661829,409Administration, Business and Economics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University82602652,17902,712Macquarie University484703021,90202,722Southern Cross University43113911,73111,979University of New England382702201,07401,602University of New South Wales1159661713,00204,254University of Newcastle1834391,947362,074University of Sydney1163702153,36504,066University of Technology Sydney705683293,38994,365University of Western Sydney46318534,06624,485University of Wollongong471101151,46901,741Deakin University311543283,20703,720La Trobe University46491853,16803,448Monash University1493074415,74006,637Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology483222692,26302,902Swinburne University of Technology24381401,14301,345University of Ballarat013394890541University of Melbourne904822832,95103,806 Victoria University of Technology30962122,36102,699Central Queensland University514715483501,141Griffith University70131603,05103,312James Cook University1929148993964Queensland University of Technology542513114,46805,084University of Queensland82214713,51203,879University of Southern Queensland141081391,57511,837Curtin University of Technology301472292,15712,564Edith Cowan University27741311,88602,118Murdoch University12862097301,091University of Western Australia72139931,84402,148Flinders University of South Australia518611,22901,313University of Adelaide21136411,95702,155University of South Australia331093022,65833,105Australian Maritime College054027072University of Tasmania2520741,49101,610Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University462106961773Australian National University44692021,60701,922University of Canberra261161311,02411,298Australian Catholic University014204510485Total1,5106,8155,80077,7865891,969Built Environment excluding Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University000808Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University00013013University of New England102166088University of New South Wales224288630935University of Newcastle8004320440University of Sydney4398732920506University of Technology Sydney1857531,08111,210University of Western Sydney2493500365University of Wollongong000707Deakin University100114670488La Trobe University100405Monash University000404Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology6115237760875Swinburne University of Technology10037038University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne3645455970723Victoria University of Technology10132660280Central Queensland University00018018Griffith University03189093James Cook University71424036 Queensland University of Technology19191028101951University of Queensland212553430394University of Southern Queensland00013013Curtin University of Technology32163040325Edith Cowan University00046046Murdoch University02716025University of Western Australia19062490274Flinders University of South Australia000000University of Adelaide51122230241University of South Australia918166220665Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania5922160232Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University10419024Australian National University000000University of Canberra4103040309Australian Catholic University000404Total2973424318,56329,635Agriculture—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University297173210374Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University00088088University of New England6314381810296University of New South Wales100038048University of Newcastle000000University of Sydney845153600464University of Technology Sydney011065076University of Western Sydney511373270398University of Wollongong000000Deakin University09791490237La Trobe University300101640204Monash University07120019Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology00010010Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat0059014University of Melbourne8605293001,068Victoria University of Technology000000Central Queensland University000707Griffith University520209James Cook University2479660106Queensland University of Technology000404University of Queensland116286780804University of Southern Queensland000808Curtin University of Technology30122248247 Edith Cowan University000000Murdoch University000808University of Western Australia89051590253Flinders University of South Australia000000University of Adelaide1406375650748University of South Australia00059059Australian Maritime College30182086University of Tasmania653181830269Batchelor College00051318Northern Territory University030205Australian National University111181870217University of Canberra00269071Australian Catholic University000101Total809903454,951216,216ATTACHMENT A31997 All Students (EFTSU)InstitutionHigher Degree ResearchHighere Degree Course-workOther Post-graduateUnder-graduateEnablingTotalEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUEFTSUNon-English Languages—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University001331044Macquarie University237103920432Southern Cross University00025025University of New England93333400385University of New South Wales13823660389University of Newcastle8001606174University of Sydney38813670414University of Technology Sydney0021530155University of Western Sydney46242550289University of Wollongong10270073Deakin University63461650220La Trobe University62233990430Monash University58436560721Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology60070076Swinburne University of Technology4961110130University of Ballarat00040040University of Melbourne8317207842906Victoria University of Technology00291093Central Queensland University00038038Griffith University52143870408James Cook University814890102Queensland University of Technology0521530160University of Queensland24566160651University of Southern Queensland151054070Curtin University of Technology003990102Edith Cowan University01111240136Murdoch University10131470161University of Western Australia21172280257 Flinders University of South Australia10002680278University of Adelaide18003080326University of South Australia00762069Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania9011960206Batchelor College000223961Northern Territory University00637043Australian National University20463630393University of Canberra0121310134Australian Catholic University00054054Total376922797,851478,645Behavioural Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University348885030642Macquarie University679112279401,074Southern Cross University0002222224University of New England1219282670326University of New South Wales315914460537University of Newcastle3618164640534University of Sydney6035891,09601,280University of Technology Sydney0111047068University of Western Sydney1210625640684University of Wollongong313213610425Deakin University373114494701,159La Trobe University50498486901,052Monash University64624791601,089Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology1020264700526Swinburne University of Technology462653690482University of Ballarat53272170252University of Melbourne90649096301,207Victoria University of Technology1927535200619Central Queensland University0001310131Griffith University4739261,27201,384James Cook University29084005442Queensland University of Technology0164800487University of Queensland105551196701,138University of Southern Queensland1619184457505Curtin University of Technology3881223620503Edith Cowan University155704240496Murdoch University214713620431University of Western Australia3930104176502Flinders University of South Australia212544100460University of Adelaide201303180351University of South Australia957633130442Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania161602960328Batchelor College0009918Northern Territory University0017901108Australian National University121702970326University of Canberra022251981246Australian Catholic University0703750382Total9611,1631,10417,6013120,860Other Social Studies—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University161471121,14901,424Macquarie University763441,03401,148Southern Cross University19425770602University of New England2331425780674 University of New South Wales134117801,88202,213University of Newcastle442571,128701,274University of Sydney12492661,701182,001University of Technology Sydney46522767211808University of Western Sydney53714788201,053University of Wollongong231843890434Deakin University4077561,41101,584La Trobe University9733351,43801,603Monash University11669731,70901,967Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology517112091301,155Swinburne University of Technology13172450266University of Ballarat6194382456University of Melbourne11635331,05111,236Victoria University of Technology2847498901,095Central Queensland University7003905402Griffith University6349461,09201,250James Cook University24141968617760Queensland University of Technology2754561,41801,555University of Queensland137104541,45601,751University of Southern Queensland00567072Curtin University of Technology3834494911,035Edith Cowan University42341021,140101,328Murdoch University6421215750681University of Western Australia78884948596Flinders University of South Australia582638130900University of Adelaide68428989301,092University of South Australia40691411,47201,722Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania6517297020813Batchelor College00066268Northern Territory University9331923210Australian National University177384381601,074University of Canberra143293392387Australian Catholic University315106380666Total1,9391,3821,50032,32421037,355Other Humanities—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University1629257042776Macquarie University171135341,34601,686Southern Cross University15015072525University of New England8262981,19621,440University of New South Wales784857910922University of Newcastle45351,0553671,475University of Sydney328109282,22102,686University of Technology Sydney351085169239925University of Western Sydney925871,390931,640University of Wollongong433975610650Deakin University6134691,58301,747La Trobe University1169611,51811,705Monash University2311421052,09472,579Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology218664760571Swinburne University of Technology57293740415University of Ballarat7002006213University of Melbourne30210721,90852,297Victoria University of Technology1415375390605Central Queensland University20195362114520Griffith University7513191,24101,348James Cook University4231445248559 Queensland University of Technology6039731,82501,997University of Queensland23344781,98702,342University of Southern Queensland1722508291231,041Curtin University of Technology354956670684Edith Cowan University456479382971,333Murdoch University93214789661,063University of Western Australia103767966918Flinders University of South Australia75228280907University of Adelaide4763186813965University of South Australia851831,150201,312Australian Maritime College000202University of Tasmania400161066717Batchelor College0006373136Northern Territory University2051710822172Australian National University165293882001,052University of Canberra20818972131,031Australian Catholic University306414486901,107Total2,7901,1591,38235,3371,39542,063Education—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University281002451,13901,512Macquarie University5466991,06701,286Southern Cross University6281083550497University of New England10710442756601,204University of New South Wales6294453870588University of Newcastle36140197922241,319University of Sydney13697101,10051,348University of Technology Sydney7312726796501,432University of Western Sydney67992341,838252,263University of Wollongong48621346660910Deakin University801262351,17501,616La Trobe University971123253560890Monash University9530348158701,466Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology4554635930755Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat725522092295University of Melbourne1902087161,21702,331Victoria University of Technology1110841940299Central Queensland University23278091801,048Griffith University59981311,44701,735James Cook University3670146873810Queensland University of Technology1242275872,08603,024University of Queensland711013251630660University of Southern Queensland1195200725401,071Curtin University of Technology15343685130777Edith Cowan University61402881,694192,102Murdoch University25241822480479University of Western Australia826124210233Flinders University of South Australia4289157380884University of Adelaide12299730141University of South Australia401381651,48601,829Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania319610936271,100Batchelor College0046961134Northern Territory University4416792620401Australian National University000000University of Canberra41271544521675 Australian Catholic University332243771,69002,324Total2,0303,1056,62227,47420739,438Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University144328550905Macquarie University163443280301,042Southern Cross University30054610496University of New England653155090592University of New South Wales38171322,15202,636University of Newcastle70721,1191371,335University of Sydney36169642,97803,472University of Technology Sydney1102381,18501,326University of Western Sydney12454141,06661,264University of Wollongong1011481,08401,207Deakin University7420561,54401,694La Trobe University1640391,68591,897Monash University39822162,32882,772Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology12529251,76001,939Swinburne University of Technology7001257920681University of Ballarat220233700415University of Melbourne48014453,52004,059Victoria University of Technology12530351,05581,253Central Queensland University351653253627Griffith University10615441,18401,349James Cook University158814911131,104Queensland University of Technology12316161,69221,849University of Queensland4886473,33103,872University of Southern Queensland10032653281Curtin University of Technology754481,62901,756Edith Cowan University34067190759Murdoch University1006327215864University of Western Australia25810251,47251,770Flinders University of South Australia101021,05601,159University of Adelaide233561,36901,613University of South Australia846231,167151,295Australian Maritime College00456060University of Tasmania172101084501,037Batchelor College000112Northern Territory University426825314323Australian National University248155690823University of Canberra533164792553Australian Catholic University00102410251Total5,19750178843,54530150,332Mathematics and Statistics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University21282892313Macquarie University12501,11801,135Southern Cross University3841470162University of New England5151530164University of New South Wales4144693801,029University of Newcastle121618456136638University of Sydney421229050961University of Technology Sydney7161767049759University of Western Sydney15578449844University of Wollongong14643390363Deakin University99104070435La Trobe University15074405467Monash University3710111,15701,215 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology2529286520734Swinburne University of Technology753651749614University of Ballarat2131033112University of Melbourne36101896611,031Victoria University of Technology1211255820630Central Queensland University8513339115480Griffith University7317480759James Cook University611414328192Queensland University of Technology2410246252685University of Queensland39111296701,029University of Southern Queensland417744446518Curtin University of Technology951551817564Edith Cowan University2110724093371Murdoch University7262510266University of Western Australia179115582597Flinders University of South Australia7411860198University of Adelaide44435320583University of South Australia101842929477Australian Maritime College00038038University of Tasmania5031240132Batchelor College00006666Northern Territory University101401254Australian National University264103910431University of Canberra1011522180291Australian Catholic University0301030106Total52731038517,51770419,443Computing and Computer Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University826656580757Macquarie University294164910540Southern Cross University01282592281University of New England319161600198University of New South Wales51153496220875University of Newcastle651642712466University of Sydney24404240452University of Technology Sydney1572488185958University of Western Sydney037329253997University of Wollongong3027235660646Deakin University24235492001,021La Trobe University165684651555Monash University111371301,76502,043Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology2212818782301,160Swinburne University of Technology216220272001,005University of Ballarat30261813213University of Melbourne363213850445Victoria University of Technology2138096401,059Central Queensland University020717740865Griffith University2016118590906James Cook University4232180227Queensland University of Technology34361071,49021,669University of Queensland4714155010577University of Southern Queensland574359111657Curtin University of Technology31168654310686Edith Cowan University81892897351,050Murdoch University76203390372University of Western Australia16662940322 Flinders University of South Australia6242470259University of Adelaide13663010326University of South Australia9151051,15881,295Australian Maritime College000909University of Tasmania141193080342Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University0371582170Australian National University7012810289University of Canberra15133711391Australian Catholic University0001720172Total6238031,65021,0849524,255Visual and Performing Arts—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University02155520578Macquarie University0001000100Southern Cross University10013940405University of New England12881340162University of New South Wales9610751,16901,377University of Newcastle2415161,013181,086University of Sydney12433281,28401,469University of Technology Sydney13193927422University of Western Sydney463881,38501,477University of Wollongong22422640292Deakin University298177250779La Trobe University483327960879Monash University8710268120935Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology11913361,23601,404Swinburne University of Technology5001910196University of Ballarat3022780283University of Melbourne15711941,76412,117Victoria University of Technology0011950196Central Queensland University0001450145Griffith University3810471,41301,508James Cook University34064030443Queensland University of Technology191717880825University of Queensland3411143570416University of Southern Queensland0342000207Curtin University of Technology91446460673Edith Cowan University038108721921Murdoch University0211750178University of Western Australia370112240272Flinders University of South Australia5302740282University of Adelaide158940919460University of South Australia132401,02301,060Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania36267770821Batchelor College000404Northern Territory University2072050214Australian National University6304163014721University of Canberra3003030306Australian Catholic University1402240229Total1,03543056121,7566023,842Engineering, Processing and Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University00034034Macquarie University111011130135Southern Cross University00094094University of New England181366088 University of New South Wales253148621,55102,014University of Newcastle83706890779University of Sydney1662371,08601,282University of Technology Sydney4961391,44601,595University of Western Sydney19445122541University of Wollongong781285120610Deakin University314152770327La Trobe University20152750301Monash University17356461,83002,105Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology249122541,67502,100Swinburne University of Technology62578391201,114University of Ballarat51111570174University of Melbourne18720161,60001,823Victoria University of Technology4425374660572Central Queensland University63502710330Griffith University271453840430James Cook University26452710306Queensland University of Technology6623411,04011,171University of Queensland247951,02601,287University of Southern Queensland19055610585Curtin University of Technology47283899101,104Edith Cowan University80161910215Murdoch University3017980118University of Western Australia9520589801,018Flinders University of South Australia3201340139University of Adelaide8810196090726University of South Australia6515146700764Australian Maritime College5003280333University of Tasmania31043710406Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University20036038Australian National University41001810222University of Canberra01111240136Australian Catholic University000909Total2,21069862621,488325,025Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Science—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University000000Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University000000University of New England20014016University of New South Wales1459124920658University of Newcastle76153480430University of Sydney42031401,40901,900University of Technology Sydney00030030University of Western Sydney000000University of Wollongong000000Deakin University000000La Trobe University100001Monash University129448082301,076Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology04642052Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne306538879701,244Victoria University of Technology00135036Central Queensland University00037037Griffith University200002James Cook University14768035 Queensland University of Technology000000University of Queensland1571561,34101,519University of Southern Queensland000000Curtin University of Technology312303410404Edith Cowan University105006Murdoch University251002210256University of Western Australia87777560857Flinders University of South Australia61132690334University of Adelaide13615197710941University of South Australia000101Australian Maritime College000101University of Tasmania7001690176Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University100001Australian National University53050058University of Canberra03033036Australian Catholic University000000Total1,6542023137,938010,107Nursing and Other Health Sciences—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University345246760748Macquarie University213614170169Southern Cross University17122480268University of New England1641353480440University of New South Wales5598161420311University of Newcastle193114497901,173University of Sydney1451952282,41702,985University of Technology Sydney19491806460894University of Western Sydney321281591,999142,332University of Wollongong29109542700462Deakin University361401791,21501,570La Trobe University60583682,03502,521Monash University22571546390872Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology44200391,11201,395Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat26364090453University of Melbourne39491753710634Victoria University of Technology10391456910885Central Queensland University1320433241401Griffith University1534867500885James Cook University028252960349Queensland University of Technology27591681,40461,664University of Queensland7346607930972University of Southern Queensland1783640380Curtin University of Technology56361881,31301,593Edith Cowan University336438500932Murdoch University00420024University of Western Australia1522101310178Flinders University of South Australia25140687280961University of Adelaide2438112480222University of South Australia19482471,40601,720Australian Maritime College00010010University of Tasmania16276160650Batchelor College00072375Northern Territory University13779090Australian National University01930022University of Canberra517452460313 Australian Catholic University629993801,045Total8641,9133,19524,6022430,598Administration, Business and Economics—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University103112322,18802,741Macquarie University595383602,17003,127Southern Cross University25146961,68501,952University of New England403652561,21701,878University of New South Wales1239692342,94204,268University of Newcastle2739292,180502,325University of Sydney1233991883,60004,310University of Technology Sydney726793803,94985,088University of Western Sydney50341664,69305,150University of Wollongong4693831,60601,828Deakin University321353103,08803,565La Trobe University47581893,44903,743Monash University1482234675,76406,602Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology552972922,58803,232Swinburne University of Technology51702141,48811,824University of Ballarat07525640623University of Melbourne914902703,23914,091Victoria University of Technology38802232,44602,787Central Queensland University81601421,05801,368Griffith University71167513,15203,441James Cook University1859171,06011,155Queensland University of Technology453173184,83205,512University of Queensland962561043,77904,235University of Southern Queensland26233671,56401,890Curtin University of Technology361892312,28712,744Edith Cowan University33931232,01052,264Murdoch University1790241,13901,270University of Western Australia78170951,86432,210Flinders University of South Australia1630441,37301,463University of Adelaide20133431,94102,137University of South Australia371353072,53373,019Australian Maritime College073552094University of Tasmania3046671,60801,751Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University75366772745Australian National University56592391,65102,005University of Canberra301041021,13231,371Australian Catholic University06215750602Total1,6617,5475,97783,1438298,410Built Environment excluding Surveying—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University00019019Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University00017017University of New England2035680105University of New South Wales292518770932University of Newcastle6004580464University of Sydney3898772790492University of Technology Sydney1750491,00101,117University of Western Sydney311113960421University of Wollongong000505Deakin University132124430470La Trobe University000000Monash University00011011 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology669197690863Swinburne University of Technology00099099University of Ballarat000000University of Melbourne3437506620783Victoria University of Technology00122710283Central Queensland University00033033Griffith University00055055James Cook University72217028Queensland University of Technology24199090411,038University of Queensland262343510404University of Southern Queensland00026026Curtin University of Technology32153160336Edith Cowan University00038038Murdoch University04716027University of Western Australia8022800290Flinders University of South Australia000000University of Adelaide8051890202University of South Australia1013205571601Australian Maritime College000000University of Tasmania81102000219Batchelor College000000Northern Territory University00025025Australian National University000000University of Canberra10053160331Australian Catholic University000505Total3123064168,70329,739Agriculture—Based on Actual Student DataCharles Sturt University297203790435Macquarie University000000Southern Cross University00080080University of New England6720351920314University of New South Wales50014019University of Newcastle000000University of Sydney837203510461University of Technology Sydney06040046University of Western Sydney451293320398University of Wollongong000000Deakin University15481830237La Trobe University250112360272Monash University0650011Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology000000Swinburne University of Technology000000University of Ballarat0087015University of Melbourne1000498100959Victoria University of Technology000000Central Queensland University000707Griffith University500005James Cook University311211730127Queensland University of Technology000404University of Queensland123366260758University of Southern Queensland000404Curtin University of Technology401324813278Edith Cowan University000000Murdoch University000707University of Western Australia96051650266 Flinders University of South Australia000909University of Adelaide1325345470718University of South Australia00070070Australian Maritime College50542052University of Tasmania732122490336Batchelor College00041519Northern Territory University000000Australian National University33882180267University of Canberra00152053Australian Catholic University000303Total857933004,952286,2303808(Question No. 2635)26353808Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant; and (ii) for what purposes was it provided; and what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).3808Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—As indicated above the honourable member has asked identical questions of both ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of both ministers:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade(1) No grants have been provided to ACCI by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.(2) (a) Nil.(b) According to the 1997 Annual Report of the ACCI, Mr Harold Clough was a member of the Board of the ACCI until the end of 1997. Mr Clough was appointed to the Advisory Panel for the White Paper on Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy in August 1996. The work of the Advisory Panel ceased with publication of the White Paper in August 1997.(3) According to our records, Mr Clough received a total of $4969 for his attendance at three meetings of the White Paper Advisory Panel. This covered airfares from Perth and travelling allowance of $200 per overnight stay.Austrade(1) No grants have been provided to ACCI by Austrade.(a) Nil.(b) An ACCI representative has been a member of the Export Access Management Committee from inception of the Export Access program in October 1991.(3) Nil.AusAID(1) (a) (i) A grant was approved as part of the ASEAN Australian Economic Cooperation Program (AAECP) Linkages Stream in February 1997 by the Joint Linkages Stream Appraisal Panel (JLSAP) in Jakarta. The Linkages Stream program funds small-scale short duration activities that aim to promote economic cooperation between ASEAN and Australia by establishing cooperative and joint activities involving the private, research, academic and government sectors in ASEAN and Australia. Linkages Stream activities contribute towards enhanced trade and investment links between ASEAN and Australia as well as contribute to sustainable development and economic growth in ASEAN.AusAID contributions for activities range from a minimum of $A25,000 and will generally not exceed $A250,000. Funds for successful proposals will be provided up to a maximum of 60% of total eligible project costs and will be provided in arrears.(ii) The approved proposal involved the following three main objectives: To develop commercial opportunities between Small Medium Enterprises (SME) in Australia and in regional areas in ASEAN through an exchange of missions by business people with targeted business interests with particular regard to training and technology transfer opportunities;To assess and report on commercial prospects for Australian SME in the regional areas nominated (cities in Indonesia and Vietnam) to form the basis for development of a regional SME business linkages strategy with these areas; andTo strengthen and expand the trade facilitation network between State and regional Chambers of Commerce and Industry in Australia and counterpart business associations in ASEAN through mutually beneficial commercial exchange.(b) AusAID agreed to fund the proposal to the value of $174,042 (60% of agreed `eligible activity costs'). The project is scheduled for completion 31 May 1998. AusAID signed an agreement under the AAECP Linkages Stream program in July 1997 with the Victorian Employer's Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI). The project has since attracted one progress payment of $77,456 on 16 March 1998.(2) Nil.(3) Nil.3809(Question No. 2681)26813809Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Under the new regulations relating to the early release of superannuation benefits when a person departs permanently from Australia, is a person required to lodge a new notice of intention if the person had previously lodged a notice of intention by 30 June 1997 under the regulations issued on 25 June 1997.(2) What will be the position of persons who had not lodged a notice of intention by 30 June 1997 under the regulations issued on 25 June 1997 but who departed permanently from Australia before his press release on changes to the arrangements for early release of superannuation benefits was issued on 17 November 1997.(3) What information will the Government provide to persons who had lodged a notice of intention on the basis of the regulations issued on 25 June 1997 which no longer has effect if they do not depart permanently from Australia before 1 July 1998.3809Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. (2) These persons will be able to access their superannuation benefits on the ground of permanent departure from Australia provided a written request for release of their benefit is made to the trustee before 1 July 1998.(3) The regulations issued on 25 June 1997 amending the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations (Statutory Rules No. 153 of 1997) included a transitional provision which allows persons who have lodged a written request with their fund trustees prior to 1 July 1997 to have their benefits released on the ground of permanent departure after 1 July 1997.Under the subsequent regulations foreshadowed in the Assistant Treasurer's press release of 17 November 1997 (Statutory Rules No. 343 of 1997), these transitional arrangements are maintained. Therefore, members of superannuation funds and approved deposit funds who lodged notices of intention prior to 1 July 1997 are not necessarily required to depart from Australia by 1 July 1998 and their notices of intention do not cease to have effect on that date.It should be noted however, that the new rules relating to the early release of superannuation benefits have been publicised generally through the Assistant Treasurer's press release of 17 November 1997, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's Trustee newsletters, as well as numerous industry publications.3809(Question No. 2707)27073809Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:(1) Have current employees at overseas Australian Government missions ever been found guilty of (a) sexual harassment or (b) sexual assault; if so, is he able to (i) identify the (A) employees, (B) mission at which each is employed, (C) exact nature of the offence committed by each, (D) year the offence was committed and (E) year each began employment at the mission and (ii) explain why the employees are considered to be of fit and proper character to represent Australia by working at an overseas mission; if not, why not.(2) Before a person is employed at an overseas Australian Government mission, is a check conducted on whether the person was ever found guilty of a criminal act; if not, why not.3809Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I have been advised by the agencies covered by the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio—i.e. the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Agency for International Development and the Australian Trade Commission—that a check of the relevant disciplinary files held by these agencies has not revealed any current employees of those agencies at overseas Australian Government missions as having been found guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault. If the Honourable member is aware of any employee who has been found guilty of such offences and she believes appropriate follow-up action has not been taken, I urge her to provide all relevant information to either myself, the relevant agency within my portfolio or the Australian Federal Police. I can assure the Honourable Member that if she were to bring any such information to my attention it would be investigated promptly and thoroughly.(2) I have been advised by the above agencies that such checks are conducted.3810(Question No. 2708)27083810Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:(1) How many project applications for funding under the first phase of the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust did the Minister receive.(2) How many applications were successful.(3) What criteria were used to select the successful applications.(4) Will the Minister list the project applications, including proposals put forward by city councils or other interested organisations, from the electoral divisions of (a) Prospect, (b) Chifley, (c) Fowler, (d) Reid, (e) Blaxland, (f) Macarthur, (g) Werriwa, (h) Parramatta, (i) Lindsay, (j) Greenway, (k) Mitchell and (l) Macquarie indicating which were successful and what sum was allocated in each case; if not, why not.(5) Did representatives from (a) Fairfield City Council or (b) Holroyd City Council have discussions with representatives of the Minister's Department or office about obtaining funding under the first phase; if so, (i) when did the discussions take place, (ii) who was present and (iii) what environmental projects were put forward as worthy of receiving funding.(6) Did the Minister's Department allocate funding for environmental projects for which it received no application; if so, (a) which projects, (b) what sum was allocated in each case and (c) how were they selected.(7) Did the Cooma Monaro Shire Council receive a grant of $350 000 under the first phase specifically for flood management; if so, (a) will the Minister provide specific details of how the funding will be used, (b) is it a fact that the Council did not apply for the funding; if so, why was the funding allocated and (c) did the Council apply to the Minister for money from the Trust; if so, what are the details.(8) Did the Government discontinue the Urban Flood Mitigation Program which guaranteed funding to local government bodies to carry out necessary flood management work.(9) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Fairfield City Council's requirement for $33 million over the next 15 years to complete the necessary construction it has identified in its approved floodplain management program.(10) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to 1998 being the tenth anniversary of the last major flood in the Fairfield City Council area which resulted in (a) the rescue of 550 persons by the State Emergency Service, (b) the flooding above floor level of approximately 700 dwellings and more than 30 factories with some houses inundated to depths exceeding two metres and (c) millions of dollars worth of damage.(11) Was funding under the first phase of the Natural Heritage Trust allocated to Fairfield City Council for flood management; if not, why not.3810Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) For 1997-98, the first full year of the Natural Heritage Trust, I received 1027 applications for funding which were recommended by the State Assessment Panels through the One-Stop-Shop co-ordinated by the State/Territory Governments. I understand the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy received a further 2143 applications. In total, 3170 applications were received from States and Territories through the One-Stop-Shop process.(2) A total of 2462 projects were approved in the first round of approvals for 1997-98.(3) The criteria used were set out in the publication Natural Heritage Trust Guide to Community Group Applications 1997-98.(4) The attached table lists all applications received from the State Assessment Panels from the specified electoral divisions, so far as I have been able to determine.(5) Officers of my Department and staff in my office are not aware of any such discussions. They have been unable to find any record of such discussions.(6) No.(7) A proposal for a grant of $350,000 to the Cooma Monaro Shire Council does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. I would suggest that the honourable member directs part (7) of her question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.(8) Urban Flood mitigation does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities but I understand that the Government did discontinue the Urban Flood Mitigation Program.(9) No.(10) No.(11) There is no record within my Department of such an application being received, but it is an issue which does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. I would suggest that the honourable member directs part (11) of her question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.ATTACHMENTElectorateProject TitleProponentApproved funds 1997-98BlaxlandBankstown City Vegetation management Strategy and ActionBankstown City Council$0GreenwayStormwater Runoff—Sustainable water and pollutant managementBlacktown City Council/Uni of Western Sydney Hawkesbury$89,065LindsayRestoration of Remnant Vegetation, Bill Spicstead Complex (formerly "Leeholme" stud)Royal NSW Canine Council Ltd (RMSWCC)—Sporting Committee$2,520LindsayThe Mulgoa Creek `Bridge to Bridge' Regeneration ProjectThe Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group$38,810MacarthurA practical TCM approach to Integrated Stormwater management in Narellan Creek Catchment.Upper Nepean CMC through Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management$115,268MacarthurTahmoor Park RehabilitationTahmoor Park Landcare Group$7,730MacarthurThirlmere Wetlands and Revegetation AreaThirlmere Wetlands and Landcare Group$0MacarthurUpper Nepean Catchment Habitat Inventory and AssessmentDavid G. Stead Memorial Wildlife Research Foundation (aka Wirrimbirra Sanctuary)$0MacarthurWallacia Riverine Rehabilitation ProjectWallacia Riverine and Landcare Group—convened by Hopewood Health Centre$32,522 MacarthurWingecarribee Roadside Assessment and Management Plan ProjectWingecarribee Linear Reserves Group$0MacarthurWollondilly Roadside Reserve StrategyWollondilly Shire Council$59,312MacquarieArgyle Bailey Reserve Regeneration ProjectHawkesbury City Council and Middle Nepean Hawkesbury CMC$0MacquarieCurrency Creek Vegetation management Plan—Stage 2Hawkesbury City Council$3,600MacquarieFilling the GapsThe Men of the Trees NSW inc.$55,120MacquarieHawkesbury Earthcare Water Conservation and management Project.Henry Doubleday Research Association of Australia$5,790MacquarieInteLife Revegetation and Runoff ProjectSydney City Mission—InteLife$32,500MacquarieNoureen working with nature achieving ecological sustainabilityCarolyn & John Low$5,547MacquarieRehabilitation of degraded creekline in Else—Mitchell Park (Stage 2)Else—Mitchell Park Landcare Group$10,044MacquarieSouth Creek West Bank Riparian Zone Restoration ProjectHawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management$16,383MacquarieWilberforce Community Nursery Upgrade ProjectHawkesbury City Council$0MacquarieWildplant Rescue Project Support and Arresting Understorey DeclineBlue Mountains Wild Plant Rescue Service$0MitchellEcology of the Maroota Sandmass and EnvironsHawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust$0MitchellGlanmire Road Reserve Crestwood Reserve Greening ProjectGlanmire Road Reserve Bushcare Group$0 MitchellWest Pennant Hills Blue Gum High Forest RescueDarling Mills Creek Landcare Group$1,200ParramattaDraft Plan Management of Lower Darling Mills CreekSpeers Road Creek Management Committee$0ParramattaGalaringi Botanic Parkland Indigenous Species Recovery Weed EradicationFriends of Galaringi the Carlingford Botanic Parkland Inc$0ParramattaRestoration of Bushland Toongabbie Creek Old ToongabbieParramatta City Council$16,000ParramattaToongabbie Creek Stormwater Erosion Control Works NorthmeadParramatta City Council$0ParramattaTraining for Periodic Detention Volunteers in Bush RegenerationDept of Corrective Services Silverwater Education Unit$8,924ParramattaVineyard Creek Reserve Bush Regeneration ProjectVineyard Creek Reserve Committee$0ParramattaWeed Removal from William Joyce and Crestwood Reserves Baulkham HillsUpper Parramatta River Catchment Trust$0ReidDuck River Bushland Reserve Regeneration ProjectFriends of The Duck River Bushland Reservestill under considerationReidGenerate Woodland Conservation Habitat On Powells Creek RookwoodJoint Committee on Necropolis Trustees$0ReidRegenerate Woodland Conservation Habitat Upper Cooks River RookwoodJoint Committee on Necropolis Trustees$0WerriwaNoorumba Reserve Bush RegionCampbelltown City Council$17,0003814(Question No. 2714)27143814Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:Is it a fact that yachts and fishing vessels, in full survey with approved radio equipment, voyaging in southern and western Tasmanian waters are unable to communicate with Melbourne Radio contrary to assurances provided before Hobart Radio was closed; if so why.3814Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Telstra and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) have advised the following:The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (the SOLAS Convention) requires that member countries provide communication services for vessels which operate under that Convention. In broad terms, such vessels are those in excess of 300 Gross Registered Tons.In fulfilling Australia's obligations under the SOLAS Convention, AMSA provides a network of six Coast Radio Stations for safety and distress communications with vessels at sea. These stations are located at Melbourne, Perth, Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney and are managed and operated by Telstra under contractual arrangements with AMSA. A station at Hobart, which previously had been part of the Coast Radio, Station network, was closed in 1992. Telstra has also provided additional maritime communications services, in its own right, separately from its contract with AMSA.Under the provisions of the SOLAS Convention, traditional methods of maritime communications are being replaced through the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). The GMDSS is required to be fully implemented by 1999. Until that time, the network of Coast Radio Stations may be suitable to the needs of State/Territory-registered vessels including yachts and fishing vessels, providing they are equipped with suitable radio equipment.State/Territory-registered vessels fall outside the scope of the SOLAS Convention and responsibility for providing their communications service falls to State and Territory governments. This long-standing arrangement was confirmed by Commonwealth and State/Territory Ministers for Transport at the Australian Transport Advisory Council in 1992 when it was accepted by the Council that: (a) the Australian Coast Radio Network is established primarily for SOLAS vessels, (b) if non-SOLAS vessels wish to use the network, they must fit all Medium Frequency and High Frequency radiotelephone distress channels (from 2 to l 6 MHz) to guarantee reliable access; and (c) if State governments are not satisfied with the service provided by the network they are free to establish their own maritime communications infrastructure.Vessels operating in Tasmanian waters are able to communicate effectively with the network of Coast Radio Stations, providing they are fitted with appropriate radio equipment. Such equipment may be in excess of that required by State government regulations.A key element of the design in the Coast Radio Network is that any station in the network, not necessarily that which is geographically closest, can respond to an emergency call. Calls from ships located in Tasmanian waters will not necessarily be responded to by the station at Melbourne but can be received and acted upon by any one of the stations in the network, provided that an appropriate frequency has been selected.AMSA and Telstra are confident that the network of Coast Radio Stations continues to provide an efficient and effective service to vessels in Tasmanian waters, provided those vessels are fitted with the appropriate equipment.AMSA has advised that through the National Maritime Safety Committee, State and Territory governments are considering the communication needs of non-SOLAS vessels, following the completion of the GMDSS in 1999.3814(Question No. 2735)27353814Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Western Times of 18 December 1997 that Mr Floyd Robinson was fined for possession and supply of a dangerous drug, drink driving and other driving offences.(2) Is it a fact that a car owned by the Department of Finance and Administration and leased to Mr Robinson's father, a deputy chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, was used as a base to sell drugs; if so, what action has he or his Department taken.3814Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Any action in this matter is for the consideration of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. 3815(Question No. 2745)27453815McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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.3815Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—As indicated above the honourable member has asked identical questions of both ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of both ministers:DFAT(1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade hired (a) 49 persons during the period 1996-97 and (b) 61 persons during the period between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 under a contract for services. These figures include contracts of varying length and give a slightly inflated impression due to the inclusion of people regardless of the length of their contract.(2) During the periods specified the sections of the department which availed themselves of contracted services were: Executive Branch, Agriculture Branch (TND), Services and Property Branch (PSD) and Information Management Branch (PSD).(3) The labour-hire firms utilised by the department were:1996-971 July 1997—28 February 1998Andem Pty LtdAndem Pty LtdAnduril Pty LtdAnduril Pty LtdAustralian Information Processing Centre (APIC)Australian Information Processing Centre (APIC)BHP Information Technology Pty LtdBHP Information Technology Pty LtdChapmen Information Technology ConsultingBrindabella CommunicationsComputerplus Integrations Pty Ltd (CPIC)CES ComputersConsultel AustraliaChapmen Information Technology ConsultingCultural Concepts & ManagementComputer Training & ConsultancyCypdem Pty LtdComputerplus Integrations Pty Ltd (CPIC)Deloitte Touche TohmatsuConsultel AustraliaLG Cook & AssociatesCypdem Pty Ltd Library LocumsDatum Systems IntegrationLightfar Pty LtdDrake IndustrialModinay Pty LtdEltham Mgt Consulting Services Pty LtdPaxus Australia Pty LtdFaztech Pty LtdQuasar Professionals Pty LtdJandral Systems Pty LtdRachel CavanaghJanut CommunicationsStrategem Pty LtdJtec Pty LtdTelstra CorporationLG Cook & AssociatesWizard Information Services Pty LtdLibrary LocumsLightfar Pty LtdModinay Pty LtdPaxus Australia Pty LtdQuasar Professionals Pty LtdStrategem Pty LtdTelstra CorporationTemplineWizard Information Services Pty Ltd(4) The information technology labour-hire firms were selected through Common Use Contracts (a group of companies selected by the former Department of Administrative Services and contracted by them to provided services at a Government rate) on the basis of the firm's track record and the suitability of the contractors offered (which depended on the skills and experience required). Where firms approached were not able to offer suitable contractors, the selection was based on knowledge of a particular contractor's skills and experience. Other contractors were selected due to their staff meeting relevant security requirements and holding security clearances for the department, while others were selected through competitive tender.(5) Yes(6) Yes(7) The selection panel for successful tenders was comprised of departmental officers with relevant background and/or knowledge.(8) Total commission paid by the department is $500 which was paid to Templine.(9) Total sum (a) owed and (b) paid to each labour-hire firm is as follows:Contracting CompanyAmount Owed for Work Prior to 28/2/98Total Paid from 1/7/96 to 28/2/98$$Andem Pty Ltd20,548.75191,762.15Anduril Pty Ltd6,536.00141,150.00Australian Information Processing Centre (APIC)11,497.50227,512.50BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd5,133.00780,510.37Brindabella Communications-27,247.50CES Computers-50,470.00Chapmen Information Technology Consulting19,805.00155,270.00Cultural Concepts & Management500.00-Computer Training & Consultancy3,733.5013,569.99Computerplus Integrations Pty Ltd (CPIC)53,565.43447,653.50Consultel Australia5,460.00345,400.54Cypdem Pty Ltd8,097.75185,693.45Datum Systems Integration10,200.00140,490.00Drake Industrial-19,687.25 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu-150,300.00Eltham Mgt Consulting Services Pty Ltd10,500.00-Faztech Pty Ltd-43,200.00Jandral Systems Pty Ltd-43,600.20Janut Communications3,400.0032,034.35Jtec Pty Ltd14,640.0070,028.00LG Cook & Associates-414,779.13Library Locums2,683.8133,066.27Lightfar Pty Ltd7,046.0028,764.00Modinay Pty Ltd5,757.50158,191.35Paxus Australia Pty Ltd76,566.11784,633.23Quasar Professionals Pty Ltd22,758.00315,187.27Rachel Cavanagh-5,168.00Strategem Pty Ltd28,840.90227,079.40Telstra Corporation-57,415.77Templine500.00-Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd55,713.00908,927.89(10) The total sums paid to labour-hire firms by the department are: (a) for the period 1996-97: $ 3,207,357; (b) 1 July to 28 February 1998: $ 2,764,436.(11) The department's projected labour-hire requirements (not including contingencies) are: (a) for the period February 98 to June 98: 13; (b) July 1998 to June 1999: 56.(12) One APS officer has been replaced by a contractor employed through a labour hire firm and is located in the loading dock. In the case of all other contractors, hired labour has been sought in order to staff new or expanded project requirements when a suitable APS officer has not been available. In these instances, no government employees have been replaced or displaced by contractors.AusAID(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.(a) In 1996-97 AusAID employed 43 people in this category.(b) Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February AusAID employed 36 employees in this category.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed. AusAID's Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and West Australian State Offices.AusAID Centre for Pacific Development and Training; Financial and Resource Management Branch, CDS Division; Development Issues and Corporate Policy Branch, CDS Division; Sectoral Policy and Review Branch, CDS Division; Indonesia, China and Business Branch, AAC Division; East Asia Branch, AAC Division; South Asia, Africa and Humanitarian Relief Branch, AAC Division; Papua New Guinea Branch, PIP DivisionInternational Organisations and Public Affairs Branch, PIP Division; South Pacific and Training Branch, PIP Division; Program Support Services 1 Section; Program Support Services 2 Section.(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.(a) 1996-97: Recruitment Services Australia; Templine; Green and Green Consulting; Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd; Career People; Library Locums Pty Ltd; People Edge; Drake Personnel Ltd; Alectus Personnel Pty Ltd.(b) 1 July 1997 to 28 February 1998: Recruitment Services Australia; Templine; Library Locums Pty Ltd; Dunhill Personnel; CP Resourcing Pty Ltd; Drake Personnel Ltd; Green and Green Consulting; Careers Unlimited; Effective People Pty Ltd; Career People; Quasar Professionals.. How were the labour-hire firms selected. The agencies approached to supply potential staff were selected on the basis of the location of the vacancy and the different skills, qualifications and requirements of the position, such as the need for security cleared staff.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.No 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.Not applicable.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.Not applicable.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.During the period 1 July 1996 to 28 February 1998, AusAID paid a commission to the labour-hire firms as listed in the table below.Labour-hire firmsNumber of staff engagedTotal Commission paid to each labour-hire firmTempline6$1,060.00People Edge1$450.00Dunhill Personnel1$240.00Recruitment Services Australia9$2,925.00Library Locums2$5,869.23Green and Green Consulting4$950.00Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd1$300.00Drake Personnel Ltd4$1,150.00Careers Unlimited1$400.00Career People1$1,292.00(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.During the period 1 July 1996 to 28 February 1998, AusAID paid the labour-hire firms listed below the following amount in COLUMN B. The amounts listed in COLUMN A are for services during the period 1 July 1996 to 28 February 1998 that are outstanding as of 1 March 1998.COLUMN ACOLUMN BLabour-hire firm(a) Amount owed(b) Amount paidTempline-$1,060.00Recruitment Services Australia-$2,925.00People Edge-$450.00Dunhill Personnel-$240.00Library Locums-$5,869.23Green and Green Consulting$289.75$1,408.85Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd$11,700.75$121,278.55Drake Personnel Ltd-$1,719.60Careers Unlimited-$400.00Career People$11,183.21$21,096.50Alectus Personnel Pty Ltd-$2,024.00Quasar Professionals$17,682.50-(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.(a) The total sum paid to labour-hire firms in 1996-97 was $100,071.48.(b) The total sum paid to labour-hire firms between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 was $58,400.25.(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.At this stage AusAID would expect there to be a similar trend for (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999 as occurred in the above figures from 1 July 1996 to February 1998.(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.No government employees have been replaced in AusAID through labour supplied by labour-hire firms.AUSTRADE(1) (a) Austrade employed a total of twenty nine persons through labour hire firms in 1996/97. This figure does not include the hiring of persons for short term periods of up to two weeks.(1) (b) Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 some twenty individuals have been employed through labour hire firms.(2) The persons referred to in 1 (a) and (b) have been utilised in various parts of the organisation in roles such as personal assistants, data entry operators or special projects support.(3) Labour hire firms used by Austrade as per 1 (a) and (b) above have included: Wizard Personnel, Strictly Personnel, Quay Appointments, The Employment Agency, Accountancy Placements, Phoenix Contracting, Jackman Consulting Group, Alectus Personnel, Drake Overload, Forbes Consulting, Executive Leasing Australia, Teamwork Human Resources, Direct Appointments, Omega Personnel, Career People, Green and Green, Metier Personnel.(4) Labour hire firms which comply with the quality accreditation standard ISO 9002 and with a reputation for high quality and reliable personnel are used. (5) A tender process is not used when seeking to fill short-term/temporary labour-hire firm employment contract arrangements.(6) Not applicable.(7) Not applicable.(8) A commission is not payable for a temporary short-term contract. Austrade pays a fixed hourly rate to individual firms based on the complexity of the work to be performed and according to the level of the job to be undertaken.(9) Austrade meets its obligations in accordance with labour-hire firms invoice payment requirements. All accounts are paid within one month of assignments being undertaken and in many cases within 7 days. Without substantial resource commitment it is not possible to provide a breakdown of amounts paid to each labour hire firm.(10) The total amount paid to labour hire firms in 1996-97 was approximately $400,000. For the period 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998, the total amount paid to labour hire firms was approximately $450,000.(11) (a) The projected Austrade labour hire requirement for the period February to June 1998 is ten (10) persons.(11) (b) The projected Austrade labour hire requirement for the period July 1998 to June 1999 is approximately thirty (30) persons.(12) Nil.3819(Question No. 2749)27493819McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, 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.3820Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) 127; and (b) 129.(2) Department of the Environment: Antarctic Division; Australian and World Heritage Group; Biodiversity Group; Bureau of Meteorology; Corporate Management Division; Environment Priorities and Coordination Group; Environment Protection Group; Portfolio Marine Group; Supervising Scientist Group; Australian Heritage Commission; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.(3) (a) Action Workforce; Adecco Centacom; Alectus Personnel; Allstaff Personnel; Choice Personnel; Computer People; Drake; Ecco Personnel; Evelyn Woods Personnel; Forstaff; Indian Ocean Group Training; Library Locums; Manpower Services; Michael Page Finance; Professional Careers; Quest; Skilled Engineering; Western Staff Services; Wizard.(b) Action Workforce; Adecco Centacom; Allstaff Personnel; Careers Unlimited; Choice Personnel; Drake; Forstaff; Hays Metier Personnel; Indian Ocean Group Training; Katlib Services; Library Locums; Manpower Services; Michael Page Finance; Professional Vocational Services; Quest; Western Staff Services; Wizard.(4) A variety of methods are used to determine value for money when selecting labour hire firms. As guidance, the department's purchasing guidelines provide that the market should be tested by:• if over $500 but less than $2,000, by obtaining at least three competitive verbal quotes;• if over $2,001 but less than $30,000, by obtaining at least three competitive written quotes; and• if over $30,000, by open competition, for example through public tender.Other factors used to select labour hire firms include:• local labour market knowledge;• local availability; and• previous performance.(5) Yes. Tender documents for labour hire firms selected by public tender have been provided to the honourable member. Further copies are available from the House of Representatives Table Office.(6) Yes. Terms of Reference for the the selection of labour hire firms have been provided to the honourable member. Further copies are available from the House of Representatives Table Office.(7) As indicated in the documentation provided in answer to questions 5 and 6, public tenders were invited on two occasions, both by the Australian Heritage Commission. The selection panels for successful tenders comprised the following officers from the Commission: Head—Heritage and Education Branch; Director—Commission Secretariat and Support; Executive Assistant to Executive Director; Director—Register Section; Assistant Director—Register Section.(8) A variety of commission arrangements exist depending on the firm and the particular contract. They typically involve placement fees and extension fees, but are not readily discernable and would require considerable resources to extract and collate. I am therefore not prepared to direct the resources to gather the necessary information to answer this question.(9) (a) Adecco Centacom—$36,386; Allstaff Personnel—$372; Indian Ocean Group Training—$4,089; Katlib Services—$2,472; Library Locums—$40,527; Professional Careers—$24,342; Western Staff Services—$21,952; Wizard—$39,520.(b) Action Workforce—$55,100; Adecco Centacom—$405,319; Alectus Personnel—$336; Allstaff Personnel—$29,028; Careers Unlimited—$57,090; Choice Personnel—$63,180; Computer People—$700; Drake—$346,146; Ecco Personnel—$11,400; Evelyn Woods Personnel—$5,038; Forstaff—$170,545; Hays Metier Personnel—$18,186; Indian Ocean Group Training—$5,294; Katlib Services—$3,360; Library Locums—$183,204; Manpower Services—$129,832; Michael Page Finance—$61,705; Professional Careers—$22,518; Professional Vocational Services—$13,084; Quest—$22,939; Skilled Engineering—$5,146; Western Staff Services—$70,676; Wizard—$42,825.(10) (a) $795,674.(b) $926,977.(11) There are no projections available.(12) None.3821(Question No. 2758)27583821McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Attorney-General, 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 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.3821Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my Department and portfolio agencies that while labour-hire firms are used on an ad hoc basis to engage temporary employees from time to time, they have not entered into a contract for services with any particular firm or firms to be an ongoing supplier of labour.3821(Question No. 2761)27613821McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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.3822Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) In 1996-97, 98 persons worked under a contract for services in my Department and areas of portfolio responsibilities.(b) Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998, 152 persons worked under a contract for services.(2) The following lists those areas of my department where contract staff were employed:1996-97:National Office—Corporate Applications; Customer Services; Data Management; Security & Applications Development; Veterans' Services Applications; Health Care & Services; Executive Support.Victoria—Health Services; Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service; National Investigation Unit.Western Australia—Beneficiary Transport; Records Administration.New South Wales—Executive Area; Australian War Memorial; Gallery Development; Finance; Shop; Information Technology;Buildings, Design and Services.1 July 1997—28 February 1998.National Office; Corporate Applications; Data Management; Security & Applications Development; Veterans' Services Applications; Health Care & Services; Executive Support.Victoria—Benefits—Executive.Western Australia—Beneficiary Transport; Records Administration.New South Wales—Executive Area; Australian War Memorial; Gallery Development; Education and Visitor Services; Research Centre; Finance; Shop; Military Heraldry and Technology; Information Technology; Buildings, Design and Services.(3) The following lists the names of the labour-hire firms which provided services in the periods specified:1996-97—Andol Pty Ltd; Ayom Holdings; Bravo Systems Services Pty Ltd; Computer Pty Ltd; Computer Power Group Pty Ltd; Corinella Services Pty Ltd; Elk Grove Pty Ltd; Farine Pty Ltd; Finzac Pty LtdM. C. Computer Services Pty Ltd; Parity People Pty Ltd; Patacat Pty Ltd; Paxus Australia Pty Ltd; Srigo Pty Ltd; Stratagem Pty Ltd; Sytech Pty Ltd; Technocratics Pty Ltd; Trak Technology; Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd; Wylken Pty Ltd; Wizard; Drake Overload.Victoria—Inter Staffing Services; Catalyst.Western Australia—Drake Overload.New South Wales—Drake.Australian War Memorial—Alectus; Quest; Allstaff; Key People.1 July 1997—28 February 1998—Ancaro Systems Pty Ltd; Bravo Systems Services Pty Ltd; Computer People Pty Ltd; Corinella Services Pty Ltd; Finzac Pty Ltd; M. C. Computer Services Pty Ltd; Parity People Pty Ltd; Patacat Pty Ltd; Paxus Australia Pty Ltd; Srigo Pty Ltd; Stratagem Pty Ltd; Sytech Pty Ltd; Technocratics Pty Ltd; Trak Technology; Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd; Wylken Pty Ltd; Wizard; Drake Overload; Kowalski Consulting.Victoria—Inter Staffing Services; Catalyst; Kelly Services; JAV; Staff Search.Western Australia—Drake Overload.New South Wales—Drake.Australian War Memorial—Alectus; Quest; Allstaff.(4) Labour-hire firms were essentially selected on the basis of competitive hourly rates provided that the quality of staff and skills sought could be assured. Aside from cost, other criteria included the capacity for an immediate start to address short-term workload requirements, reputation both in terms of the quality of the recruited staff and the standard of service provided by the firm and previous experience of the firm.(5) No labour-hire firms were selected by public tender.(6) No terms of reference were used in the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) As tenders were not called for selection panels were not convened.(8) No separate commission was paid to any labour-hire firm. The agreed hourly rate was all inclusive of costs applying.(9) Sums owing and total payments made to each labour-hire firm are as detailed:(a) Sums Owing:Victoria Inter Staffing Services$30,228.81Kelly Services$2,626.30JAV$2,093.07Staff Search$10,868.05Australian War MemorialAlectus$103,107.00Quest$4,532.00Allstaff$30,083.00(b) Sums Paid:National OfficeAncaro Systems Pty Ltd$24,000.00Andol Pty Ltd$15,532.00Ayom Holdings$42,218.00Bravo Systems Services Pty Ltd$235,810.00Computer People Pty Ltd $363,198.00Computer Power Group Pty Ltd $12,913.00Corinella Services Pty Ltd$169,862.00Elk Grove Pty Ltd$22,684.00Farine Pty Ltd$31,872.00Finzac Pty Ltd$111,931.00M. C. Computer Services Pty Ltd$661,924.00Parity People Pty Ltd$357,064.00Patacat Pty Ltd$36,354.00Paxus Australia Pty Ltd$689,447.00Srigo Pty Ltd$436,423.00Stratagem Pty Ltd$99,185.00Sytech Pty Ltd$44,041.00Technocratics Pty Ltd$146,563.00Trak Technology$212,263.00Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd$833,375.00Wylken Pty Ltd$188,910.00Wizard$5165.90Drake$17463.37Kowalski Consulting$4782.81VictoriaInter Staffing Services$460,935.74Kelly Services$46,429.64JAV$6,438.18Staff Search$5,689.12Catalyst$2,596.90Western Australia Drake Overload$57,734.47New South WalesDrake$26,056.55Australian War MemorialAlectus$164,428.00 Quest$75,396.00Allstaff$23,072.00Key People$1,287.00(a) In 1996-97 my Department paid a total of $2,802,013.37 and the Australian War Memorial $55,192.00 to labour-hire firms.(b) Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 my Department paid $2,566,848.31 and the Australian War Memorial $208,991.00 to labour-hire firms.(11) It is difficult to project contract labour requirements which are dependent on the relationship between changing priorities, new projects and the availability of in-house skills. While staff recruited for departmental requirements are essentially full-time, the contract periods vary significantly from short-term to long-term. Australian War Memorial requirements include a mix of casual, part-time and full-time staff.(a) & (b) Contract requirements for the remainder of the 1997-98 financial year will exceed those of the 1996-97 financial year due to ongoing demands in IT development in my Department, and major work in the Gallery redevelopment program at the Australian War Memorial which is impacting on a range of services and activities including exhibitions, conservation and curatorial activities and registration support. While these projects are underway it is anticipated that recruitment of contract staff in 1998-99 will be at a level similar to that of the current financial year.(12) No government employees have been replaced in my Department through labour provided by labour-hire firms. The Australian War Memorial has replaced six government employees through labour-hire recruits as this provided a more effective and efficient way of staffing a specific area.3824(Question No. 2791)27913824Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Does his Department have to consult with State and Territory governments and agencies in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954); if so, with which State and Territory governments and agencies has his Department consulted and on what dates, in what form and with what outcomes.(2) Which Parties to the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954) are not parties to the Protocol.3824Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No decision has been made as to whether Australia is to become party to the Protocol to the Hague Convention. The Department of Communications and the Arts, the Department of Defence, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to review this issue at the inter-agency level. In making such a decision, the Commonwealth Department with prime responsibility for Australia's potential ratification of the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague, 1954) must consult with State and Territory governments before Australia could ratify the Protocol, pursuant to the treaty-making process. To date, no such consultations have occurred. (2) The following countries are a Party to the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague, 1954), but are not Parties to the Protocol: Argentina; Australia; Cte d'Ivoire; Croatia; Dominican Republic; Estonia; Kyrgyzstan; Mongolia; Oman; Panama; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; Tanzania; Uzbekistan.3824(Question No. 2796)27963824Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Does his Department cooperate with other Commonwealth departments in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954).(2) Does his Department have to consult with State and Territory governments and agencies in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the protocol; if so, with which State and Territory governments and agencies has his Department consulted and on what dates, in what form and with what outcomes.3824Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. A number of Departments have an interest in whether Australia should become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954), including: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence, the Department of Communications and the Arts and the Attorney-General's Department. Consideration of that matter is dependent on priorities and the availability of resources.(2) Before Australia ratifies any treaty or related instrument, consultation with State and Territory governments will take place in accordance with treaty processes. No such consultations have occurred to date in relation to the protocol.3825(Question No. 2814)28143825Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:Will he provide details about each application to operate an air charter program (a) into or (b) out of Australia during (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998 including (A) the name of the operator, (B) the name of the charterer, (C) the country of (I) origin and (II) destination, (D) the points of arrival or destination overseas, (E) the points of arrival or destination in Australia, (F) the number of flights, (G) the type of aircraft to be used, (H) the number of passengers expected to be carried, (I) the quantity of freight expected to be carried and (J) whether the charter was approved and, if not, why not.3825Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Details of passenger charter programs approved in 1997 and freight charter programs approved in 1997 and 1998 are attached. No passenger charter programs have been approved to date in 1998. These tables provide information on charter applications which relate to four or more flights. During this period no formal application which was in accordance with the Department's information requirements was denied approval.No information is provided on the amount of freight to be carried on charter flights as the Department does not tabulate this information.PASSENGER CHARTER PROGRAMS APPROVED 1997OperatorChartererCountry of Origin or DestinationRouteNo of FltsAircraft typeNo. of paxAirtours InternationalUKLGW/BAH/SIN/SY D51B763326MAN/BAH/SIN/SY DRoyal BruneiInter-Pacific Travel & ToursBruneiBWN/ADL/BWN(F ERRY)6B767-300209BWN(FERRY)/ADL /BWNAll Nippon AirwaysAll Nippon Airways World ToursJapanJapan—Australia6B767-300ER202Japan Air SystemsKinki Nippon Tourist Company and Nokyo Tourist CorporationJapanJapan—Australia5DC10-30295Transmile AirTransmile AirMalaysiaKUL/XCH/CGL(Tec h)/KUL8B737-200110/123Malaysia AirlinesSeduniai & YangtzeMalaysiaPEN/BNE/KUL KUL/BNE/PEN 400 KUL/BNE/KUL6DC10-30 & B747 400340 & 402Air Caledonie InternationalAir CaledonieNew CaledoniaNOU/NKL vv13ATR4246Australian Connection AirlinesHoliday PlannersIndia/NepalSYD/MADRAS/SY D SYD/DELHI/SYD SYD/KATHMAND U/SYD72B747-200470All Nippon AirwaysAll Nippon Airways World ToursJapanKAGOSHIMA/BNE BNE/KANSAIHIRO SHIMA/BNEBNE/S YDSYD/KAGOSHI MADENPASAR/SY DSYD/OKINAWA1111111B763B76 3B763B7 63B763B 763B7632452452 4524524 5245245Air NiuginiPNGPOM/DRW/POM4A310936Transmile AirChristmas Island ResortMalaysiaKUL/SIN/XCH v v26B737-200110Canada 3000CanadaVAN/HNL/NAN/SY D50B757-200ER226 National Jet SystemsChristmas Island ResortSingaporeXCH/SIN/XCH7BAe146 RJ7070Singapore AirlinesSingapore AirlinesSingaporeSIN/HBA/SIN10A310-300915Britannia AirwaysPort Philip Investments and Austravel BeniluxUK, Netherlands, New ZealandUK-Australia-NZ, Netherlands- Australia-NZ60B767-200 & B767-300274 & 328Merpati NusantaraPT Duta CardindoIndonesiaDenpasar/Broome26F28-400065HarlequinVariousJapanRegional centres in Japan/Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns20DC10-30276FREIGHT CHARTER PROGRAMS APPROVED IN 1997 AND 1998OperatorChartererCountry of Origin or DestinationRouteNo of FltsAircraft typeAPPROVED 1997Federal ExpressNorthaus TradingPhilippinesSYDNEY/SUBIC BAY5MD-llFSouthern Air TransportQantasUSALAX/HNL/NAN/ SYD vv42DC8Transport PacificAir ExpressSolomon IslandsBNE/HIR vv78B727-200Air SophiaCargo Air (NZ)New ZealandBNE/NLK/HLZ HLZ/BNE/NLK/ AKL/HLZHLZ/ MEL/AKL/HLZ HLZ/BNE/HLZ4AN 12Ryan International AirlinesAnsett Air FreightNew ZealandAKL/SYD/AKL60B727-200Kitty Hawk AircargoAnsett Air FreightNew ZealandAKL/SYD/AKL65B727-200FIndependent AirAnsett Air FreightNew ZealandAKL/SYD/AKL10DC9-33Pacific Air ExpressPacific Air ExpressSolomon IslandsSolomon IslandsSolomon IslandsBNE/HIR/BNEB NE/HIR/NAUR U/HIR/BNEBNE /PORT VILA/HIR/BNE522626B727B727B727Gemini Air CargoQantas/FedexUSALAX/HNL/NAN/ SYD vv42DC10Malaysia AirlinesVariousMalaysiaKUL/MEL/KUL12MDllFAPPROVED 1998Heavylift Cargo AirlinesRock-It CargoSingaporeSIN/DRW/MEL2AN-124JapanBNE/CNS/GUM/ TYO2AN-124JapanTYO/SYD/CNS/ GUM/TYO1AN-124Malaysia AirlinesVariousMalaysiaKUL/MEL/KUL14MDllF3827(Question No. 2817)28173827Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) How many of Telstra's public telephone booths have been converted to `smart card' use.(2) Is it a fact that some public telephones retain a coin slot but will not permit calls to be made after a coin is inserted and do not provide a coin return mechanism resulting in potential users losing their coins; if so, why is a coin slot retained.(3) What consideration has been given to public telephone users who have small change but no smart card.(4) What options are available to users referred to in part (3) in cases of emergency.(5) Does Telstra provide a warning notice on public telephone booths not accepting coins; if not, why not.(6) Is it a fact that advice that the telephone will not accept coins appears on a small electronic display panel only after coins are inserted; if so, why.(7) What sum has Telstra collected because persons have inserted coins into coin slots without success.(8) How does Telstra use the sum referred to in part (7).3827Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at 31 March 1998, approximately 24,000 of the 35,000 public payphones operated by Telstra have been converted to joint smart card/coin usage, with over 30,000 expected to be converted by mid-1998.(2) Except for a small number of special-purpose payphones designed to meet the requirements of special groups, for example corrective institutions and some secondary and tertiary institutions, and specifically manufactured without a coin slot, all of the new payphones will accept every Australian coin and all have a coin return mechanism.However, payphones are subject to vandalism which can render them inoperable for coin operation. Once the coin mechanism is vandalised, the new payphones will normally operate using a Smart Card. If the new payphone detects that both the coin and card mechanisms are damaged, the payphone places itself in the "Free Local Call" mode. Telstra's new payphones automatically report themselves out of order, enabling Telstra to readily respond to faults. In some high vandalism prone areas, Telstra has converted new phones, on a temporary basis, to card-only operation to ensure that there is a functional payphone available. In these cases, the coin chute is blocked off, ensuring coins cannot be inserted.(3) See answer to (2) above. Other cashless calling options available to users of public payphones include Telstra's Homelink Service, the Phoneaway prepaid calling card, Freecall 1800 calls and Automatic and Operated Assisted Reverse Charge calls.(4) The "000" emergency service is available without the use of cards or coin.In the event of "emergency" situations which do not involve police, fire or ambulance the options set out in (3) above are available.(5) Except for a small number of payphones modified for special "card only" purposes (and manufactured without a coin slot), all new payphones are intended to accept every Australian coin. When new payphones are temporarily modified to avoid vandalism as mentioned in (3) above, Telstra blocks off the coin entry slot. Telstra is in the process of producing a sticker to place on the payphone advising that coins are not accepted.(6) No. If damage to the coin mechanism has been detected, the electronic screen lights up when the handset is lifted and clearly displays the message "INSERT CARD" in bold 20 point type. Because the screen is normally dark, the user's attention is immediately drawn to the lit message. Depending on where the coin blockage has occurred, the display may permanently display the message "LIMITED SERVICE—CARD ONLY".(7) Monies cleared by Telstra service personnel are returned to the phone's coin box and not accounted for independently of the normal payphone coin receipts. However, customers who have lost money can call Telstra's Customer Service Department on 132200 and have the money refunded, either as a credit on a nominated telephone account, or returned in coins.(8) General payphone receipts are used primarily to fund the installation, operation and maintenance of the payphone network.3827(Question No. 2867)28673827Morris, Allan, MPMr Allan MorrisFI4NewcastleALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) Following the retirement of Justice Renaud from the Family Court at Newcastle, will a new judge be appointed; if so when. (2) Will the financial and human resources available to the Family Court at Newcastle be held to at least their current levels.(3) Will the Government ensure the level of autonomy of the Family Court at Newcastle and its service of the region, including its outreach services, is maintained.3828Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Justice Renaud has given formal notice of her intention to resign as a judge from the Newcastle Registry of the Family Court in September 1998. Judges are appointed to the Court. Normally, the Government agrees to an appointment in a particular State, but it is a matter for the Chief Justice where the judge will be located in that State. Appointments are made after a process of broad consultation to ensure that the best possible candidates are identified.(2) The net Running Costs appropriation for the Family Court in the 1997/98 Budget was $106,535,000. In the 1998/99 Budget it is $107,229,000. The Court has indicated that the financial and human resources available to the Newcastle Registry will therefore be held to at least their current levels.(3) Parliament has made the Family Court a self-administering agency where decisions about the management of its administrative, including financial affairs rest with the Court. Accordingly, the level of autonomy of the Newcastle Registry, its service to the region, including its outreach services, is a matter for the Court.3828(Question No. 2870)28703828Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) Who was involved in the decision to cease core funding for the Cairns Migrant Resource Centre.(2) Did the Member for Leichhardt make representations to him, his office or his Department about the operation of the Cairns Migrant Resource Centre; if so, what was the nature of the representations.(3) What public processes, tendering or submission, were established before Cairns Centacare was selected to take over migrant services in Cairns.(4) What is the nature of his Department's agreement with Cairns Centacare and how does the agreement compare with the agreement which existed with the Cairns Migrant Resource Centre. (5) For what period has Cairns Centacare been contracted to provide migrant services in Cairns and how does it compare with the arrangement which existed with the Cairns Migrant Resource Centre.(6) What is the value of the contract between Cairns Centacare and his Department to provide migrant services in the region and how does it compare with the arrangement which existed with the Cairns Migrant Resource Centre.(7) Is he able to state whether Cairns Centacare failed to renew a contract with the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs; if so, how does the value of the contract with that Department compare with the value of the contract with his Department.3828Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Apart from me, staff in my Department's Brisbane, Cairns and Central Offices.(2) No formal representations were made to myself or my Department by the Member for Leichhardt. I am advised that the Member did express concerns about the operation of the Cairns MRC to my Department's North Queensland Regional Manager when he made a courtesy visit to the Member shortly after taking up his appointment in the region.(3) Cairns Centacare has not been selected to take over migrant services in Cairns.I announced on 25 March 1998 that the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme worker-based grant, which I awarded to the Cairns MRC on 28 August 1997, would henceforth be managed under the auspices of Centacare Cairns. This grant is covered by a Service Agreement. Centacare was judged to be an appropriate organisation to manage additional resources, at least in the interim, because it has a proven record of service delivery.The work program objectives of the Cairns MRC CSS Scheme worker-based grant were to enable the employment of a full-time worker for a period of twelve months to assist new arrivals and improve outreach to people from non-English speaking countries in rural and remote areas. These objectives closely approximate key settlement service objectives contained in the Cairns MRC work program that had been supported by my Department's core funding. Continuation of the CMRC CSS Scheme grant by Centacare will therefore allow for the partial addressing of key settlement needs of migrants and refugees identified in the Cairns MRC core-funded work program, until alternative fuller service arrangements arising from a regional needs assessment are in place.(4) My Department's agreement with Cairns Centacare in relation to the CSS Scheme grant transferred from the Cairns MRC is referred to in (3) above. Cairns Centacare is also currently funded by my Department under a Service Agreement for a CSS Scheme worker which I awarded to the organisation on 28 August 1997 to assist newly arrived humanitarian entrants and migrants get access to services.My Department funded the Cairns MRC under two different programs. Under the Migrant Resource Centre Program, it received funding for two core staff, rent and a contribution towards operating costs. MRC funding was provided under a Service Agreement between the Commonwealth and the MRC. This funding will not be reallocated until I have considered the results of the current regional needs assessment.As referred to in (3), my Department had also provided funding to the Cairns MRC under the CSS Scheme.(5) The MRC Program funding to the Cairns MRC had been provided under a Service Agreement which, in the normal course of events, would have expired on 30 June 1998.When I announced on 25 March 1998 the termination of core funding to the Cairns MRC and the transfer MRC's CSS Scheme funding to Cairns Centacare, all CSS Scheme funding was to terminate on 30 September 1998. On 31 March 1998 I announced that organisations that had CSS Scheme worker-based grants would be offered a 12-month extension of those grants until 30 September 1999. This offer has been made to Cairns Centacare in relation to the CSS Scheme grant I awarded it last year. The future of the CSS Scheme grant transferred from Cairns MRC will be considered as part of the regional needs assessment.(6) For the 12 months to 30 September 1998, my Department is providing $48,358 to Cairns Centacare for a Level 2 CSS Scheme worker.The total amount of funding allocated to the Cairns MRC for the 12 months to 30 September 1998 was $162,396, which included $44,604 for a Level 1 CSS Scheme worker. As noted in (3), the grant for the Level 1 CSS Scheme worker is now managed under the auspices of Cairns Centacare.(7) I am unable to answer this question which should be put to my colleague, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.3829(Question No. 2888)28883829Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:Was Clayton Utz, NSW, selected to provide legal services under a tender gazetted as E8200356 Legal Fees—51 Far North Queensland Regiment: $10 000; if so, (a) what selection process was followed and (b) what is the nature of the legal services provided.3829McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Clayton Utz Melbourne were selected to provide legal services under Purchase Order E8200356 Legal Fees—51 Far North Queensland Regiment. The Defence Estate Organisation has, following a competitive tender process, established a legal panel consisting of the following three firms:. Clayton Utz,. Minter Ellison, and. Blake Dawson and Waldron.The value of the services provided by Clayton Utz in relation to this matter was $1 560. Purchase Order E8200356 was raised in the amount of $10 000 to allow for this specific advice and any other minor legal advice which may be required during the inception phase of the project.(a) Clayton Utz have been engaged in accordance with the Defence Estate Organisation's procedures for use of the legal panel. As the expected value for the provision of legal services in relation to the 51 FNQR Project was less than $15 000, one panel member was approached.(b) In regard to the nature of the legal services provided, Clayton Utz gave a legal assessment of a draft facilities acquisition strategy for the project. Because of the nature of the project, the draft delivery strategy proposed minor differences from standard delivery practices adopted within the Defence Estate Organisation, for the employment of the Project Consultant and Managing Contractor. Clayton Utz were asked to assess the legal implications of the proposed different approach, and whether it would require any amendments to the standard Defence contracts for these appointments.3829(Question No. 2908)29083829Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) What is the range of total land transport costs involved in the transport of (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers of wool from farm gate to export container terminals in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria.(2) What is the cost of each form of land transport referred to in part (1).3829Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The following information was provided by the Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE)."The BTE understands that containers are rarely, if ever, used to carry wool from the farm gate. Rather, wool is generally transported in bales by road from farms to a wool store. After sale, wool destined for export is transported to a facility where it is dumped (compressed), then loaded into a container and transported to a shipping terminal. Road transport would be used for short distance movements but rail is likely to carry any containers transhipped to an interstate port.As far as the BTE is aware, greasy wool is generally exported as dumped bales in 6 metre (20 foot) containers, although 12 metre (40 foot) boxes are sometimes used when shipping lines offer lower, back-loading rates for them out of Australia. The larger 12 metre boxes are also used sometimes for exports of scoured wool and wool tops.A further complication in estimating costs is that some wool is transported to interstate ports for export. This can happen if wool growers consign their clip to an interstate city for auction (say from northern NSW to Brisbane), or if wool buyers consign their containers to an interstate port. Export statistics suggest that only a minor percentage of the wool produced in NSW, Vic and WA is transhipped to another state for export but further research would be required to produce accurate estimates. ABARE [Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics] data (table attached) show average freight costs per kilogram paid in each state to transport wool from farm gate to store where the transport was arranged by the wool broker. The ABARE survey did not cover movements of wool where the transport was arranged by the farmer.As far as the BTE is aware, there are no generally published statistics available on post auction transport costs for wool, that is from the store to the port. According to ABARE, they are generally paid by buyers."It is therefore not possible to respond directly to the Honourable Member's question in the terms it was put. However, given advice from Wool Dumpers Australia Pty Ltd that the average 20 foot container transports 21,000kg of wool, the average freight bill for farms selling wool to a broker (which covers freight up to the time of auction) can notionally be equated to a cost per 20 foot container.The notional ABARE per container costs are approximately $395 for NSW, $181 for Victoria and $170 for WA.WOOL FREIGHT AND WOOL SOLD—PRIVATE AND AUCTION SALES 1996-97Average per farmNew South WalesVictoriaQueenslandWestern AustraliaSouth AustraliaTasmaniaAustraliaAverage for all farms selling wool (broker and private)Total quantity of wool sold—kg1129 (6)9149 (6)1846 (12)17939 (8)10369 (7)20814 (13)12759 (3)Total quality of wool sold privately—kg1935 (20)1896 (17)2657 (52)2336 (26)1427 (27)3837 (35)2009 (11)Quantity of wool sold to brokers—kg10184 (8)7254 (7)15789 (13)15603 (10)8942 (8)16977 (17)10750 (4)Percentage of wool sold to brokers—%84798687868284Population of farms selling wool—no.156351068628377762651096844398Average for all farms selling wool to a brokerQuantity of wool sold to brokers—kg12849 (7)11526 (7)18416 (12)19875 (8)10096 (8)25368 (10)14000 (4) Freight on wool sold through broker—$242 (18)99 (20)509 (24)161 (30)57 (57)64 (74)183 (11)Freight expense per kilogram of wool sold to broker—c/kg1.880.862.760.810.560.251.31Population of farms selling wool to a broker- no.12308672824406014580664833944Source: Australian agriculture and grazing industry survey.Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors expressed as a percentage of the estimates.