1998-05-283817REPS406501998-05-28Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills4065r5444065Bill presented by Mr Scott, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.406509:30:004065Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Amendment Bill 1998 contains provisions which give effect to commitments in the government's election statement, Reviving the Heartland, to `give farmers a choice between accelerated deductions for Landcare works under subdivisions 387-A and 387-B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (the act) or a tax rebate/credit set at the marginal tax rate of 34c in the dollar for qualifying expenditure'.This is a significant initiative as part of the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust to deliver the government's objective of repairing past land and water degradation and achieving a faster, more effective shift to sustainable agriculture in Australia. Importantly, it provides an incentive for land-holders to invest in works which are needed to ensure their future in agriculture and rehabilitate Australia's natural environment.The government's policy objective in implementing the landcare and water conserving and conveying facility rebate is to assist low income farmers who, because of their low incomes, are most in need of assistance to invest in landcare works.Subdivisions 387-A and 387-B of the act contain provisions which allow certain taxpayers to claim income tax deductions for landcare expenditure and for expenditure on conserving and conveying of water respectively. Low income farmers who have a low effective tax rate have a much smaller incentive to invest in such works compared with higher income farmers who are likely to have a higher effective tax rate.This bill introduces an alternative tax rebate for low income farmers so as to improve their incentive to invest in landcare works. Taxpayers with taxable incomes of up to $20,700 a year will have the alternative of claiming a tax rebate in relation to eligible expenditure incurred from the start of the 1997-98 income year. There is a maximum rebate of $1,700, based on expenditure of $5,000, for expenditure in a particular year that would otherwise be tax deductible under each of subdivisions 387-A and 387-B. This means the rebate can be claimed for up to $10,000 of eligible expenditure in any year if there is expenditure of $5,000 under each subdivision.The rebate for landcare expenditure is claimable in full in the year of the expenditure. This matches the treatment of the income tax deduction for such expenditure available under subdivision 387-A. The rebate for expenditure on facilities for water conservation and conveyance is claimable equally over the three years beginning with the year of the expenditure. This matches the treatment of the income tax deduction for such expenditure available under subdivision 387-B. In circumstances where taxpayers have chosen to take the rebate but have an insufficient income tax liability with which to absorb it, they will be able to carry forward the unused portion of their rebate.No taxpayers will be adversely affected by this measure. This proposed rebate provides an incentive for those taxpayers whose low taxable incomes would reduce the benefit of deductions to undertake new landcare and water conserving and conveying works. The economic benefit they can derive from the rebate reducing their tax liability can substantially exceed the benefit of taking income tax deductions at their marginal tax rate.The government has set aside funding of $80 million over four years for the rebate. This funding will come from the Natural Heritage Trust fund. There will be no additional compliance costs imposed on those taxpayers who wish to claim the rebate instead of the deductions otherwise available to them. They will simply have to maintain records of expenditure in the same manner as for the deductions. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4066r5424066Bill presented by Mr Bruce Scott, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.406609:37:004066Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill establishes the farm management deposits scheme. The bill introduces an important element of the government's integrated rural policy strategy to build a competitive, sustainable and profitable rural sector. The government's new Agriculture—Advancing Australia initiative is the first attempt in many years to comprehensively address the range of issues facing rural Australia. This scheme delivers on a major commitment given by the coalition at the last election.Extensive consultation with state and territory governments, farmer groups, financial institutions and the public has contributed significantly in shaping the measures introduced today. The initiatives in this bill have received widespread endorsement from key farming bodies such as the National Farmers Federation and from the financial sector, including the Australian Bankers Association.The farm management deposit, FMD, scheme enhances and expands the previous income equalisation deposit, IED, and farm management bond, FMB, schemes operated by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. This bill has been carefully designed to meet the coalition's longstanding desire to encourage increased financial self-reliance among farmers, while also taking account of the high variability of farm income streams and the vulnerability of farming businesses to natural events.Mr Speaker, the bill takes the operation of the FMD scheme out of government hands and commercialises it. The FMD scheme will be a tax-linked financial risk management tool that allows farmer taxpayers to transfer income between high income and low income years. The government's aim is to improve primary producers' capacity to manage financial fluctuations caused by environmental and market conditions. It helps them do this by allowing them to set aside considerable cash reserves earned during high income years for use in a low income year, in a tax effective way. Financial institutions are likely to offer a range of products, providing farmers with more choice as well as increased flexibility in their investment decisions.The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) will be asking the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and the Australian Taxation Office to ensure reporting arrangements are in place so that the scheme retains its integrity and can achieve its objectives. The restriction of the scheme to prudentially controlled deposit taking institutions or those with government guarantees on the deposits will increase the security of deposits.The key features of the enhanced FMD scheme will be:. A limit on holdings in the scheme of $300,000 per taxpayer;. The investment component will be set at 100 per cent on the entire balance—this means interest will be able to be earned on the whole deposit which has been made out of pre-tax income;- currently the investment component is only 61 per cent for IEDs;. Eligibility will be restricted to primary producers with a taxable non-primary production income of not more than $50,000;. The scheme will be commercialised and delivered through financial institutions, making it far easier for farmers to make deposits and withdrawals;. Investors will be able to elect only one institution with which to hold deposits, however, this institution may be changed at any time;. Financial institutions will pay an interest rate determined in the market;. Deposits will be fully tax deductible in the year of deposit and taxable in the year of withdrawal;. There will be a minimum deposit period of 12 months;. Interest will be taxable in the income year it is earned;. On withdrawal 20 per cent of the amount withdrawn will be deducted for tax purposes but this deduction may be exempted if the depositor demonstrates to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that he or she is in serious financial difficulties;. As with current arrangements, FMDs will not be available to companies, trusts or partnerships, although individual beneficiaries of trusts and individual members of partnerships will be able to use them.IEDs and FMBs have, to date, had a low rate of uptake, mainly because they have been inflexible and not commercially attractive or tax effective. Some $222 million is currently invested by more than 6,600 people in IEDs and $110 million by more than 3,300 people in FMBs. Primary producers with existing IED or FMB accounts will be able to transfer them to FMDs with no loss of tax benefits.The revised conditions in the new FMD scheme, including its commercial nature, larger investment component and flexibility of withdrawals, should secure an increased uptake of the new scheme. This is appropriate as the aim of the package is to encourage more farmers to use such deposits to manage risk. The government will be closely monitoring the operation of the scheme; in particular the interest rates offered by financial institutions and the fees and charges they levy on FMD accounts.The Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Act 1984 applied only to interest payments made under the IED scheme during the period 29 June 1984 to 22 November 1984 inclusive. All relevant periods for amendment or appeal processes relating to that time period have expired. The bill repeals the Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Act 1984 as it has become redundant.Mr Speaker, today really is a great day for the primary industries and energy portfolio. The farm management deposit scheme and the new financial risk management capability it offers will be of great benefit to the farm sector. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4067r5374067Bill presented by Mr Warwick Smith, and read a first time.406709:45:004067Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill delivers on the government's commitment to pay in full the offer made to the states in relation to health funding at the Premiers Conference in March this year. This legislation allows the Commonwealth to continue funding to all states and territories based on the fair and reasonable Premiers Conference offer. The government is not prepared to delay any longer in ensuring the continuation of funding for hospitals.We are introducing this bill today to provide certainty for the people of Australia, who can rest assured that Commonwealth funding for their hospitals will not be stopped. Already Queensland and the ACT have given in-principle commitment to enter into Australian health care agreements. Although the other states have yet to accept the government's very generous offer, we will not be denying the people of those states access to the services they require. The Commonwealth will continue to provide those states with funding for their hospitals.To receive funding under this bill, the states will be required to adhere to principles ensuring universal access to health and emergency services free of charge on the basis of clinical need and within clinically appropriate periods regardless of the patient's location. These principles are based on those applying under the existing Medicare agreements. This bill reaffirms the government's firm commitment to Medicare and provides for fair and reasonable funding to the states. I have pleasure in commending the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4068r5394068Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.406809:47:004068Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the passenger movement charge by $3 to $30 with effect from 1 January 1999. The increase was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) in the 1998-99 budget and will help to meet the additional costs associated with the transit of people and goods for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.The charge, which is imposed on the departure of a person from Australia, is collected by airlines and shipping companies at the time of ticket sales and then remitted to the Commonwealth in accordance with arrangements entered into under section 10 of the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. These arrangements have been extremely successful and beneficial to all stakeholders, not the least being the passengers whose departure from Australia is unimpeded through a seamless process which no longer requires the purchase of charge stamps.Current arrangements with airlines are due to expire on 30 June 1998 and the government is finalising negotiations with interested parties for new arrangements to apply from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001. The increase in the charge will have no impact on the arrangements and collection and remission procedures will remain the same. It is, however, desirable that the amendment to give effect to the increase in the charge from 1 January 1999 be in place at the earliest opportunity so as to provide certainty for airlines and shipping companies in relation to ticket sales for departures after the proposed date for the increase. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4068r5414068Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.406809:50:004068Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill implements the coalition government's choice of superannuation fund measure. This measure was a key initiative in the 1997-98 budget and involves reforms to give employees greater choice over which superannuation fund or retirement savings account will receive superannuation contributions made on their behalf by their employer. The choice of fund arrangements are about giving employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn will give them greater sense of ownership of these savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings.The choice of funds provisions were originally introduced to parliament in schedule 5 to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, which was introduced to the House on 4 December 1997. Those provisions were excised from that bill to ensure timely passage of other measures contained in the bill, in particular the savings rebate, which is another key initiative in the 1997-98 budget.Before the provisions were first introduced to the House in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, the government announced enhancements to the choice of fund measure on 25 November 1997. These enhancements were designed to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers and provide more flexible and responsive arrangements to address the retirement income needs of all Australians. The announcement of these enhancements followed extensive consultation and they were met with a positive reaction from industry.Amendments to the choice of fund provisions contained in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 were moved by the government in the House of Representatives. The deferral of the start date of choice of fund for new employees from 1 July 1998 to 1 July 1999 is incorporated in this bill. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4069r5454069Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.406909:53:004069Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill will implement the government's recently announced response to the taxation-related recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following its inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal Election. This bill complements other legislation currently before the parliament which implements the government's response to the other recommendations of the joint standing committee the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 .Currently, the income tax law allows a non-corporate taxpayer to deduct a contribution, which includes a membership subscription as well as a gift, of $2 or more to political parties registered under part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The total deductions allowable to a taxpayer are subject to a maximum level of $100 in an income year. Testamentary gifts or contributions are not deductible.The joint standing committee recommended that the income tax law be amended so that the maximum annual tax deductibility threshold for donations to political parties be increased from $100 to $1,500, and that companies be allowed to make tax deductible donations. The word `donation' is a general term which covers contributions as well as gifts.The government has accepted that recommendation. The government agrees with the joint standing committee that an increase in the threshold will encourage small to medium donations, thereby increasing the number of Australians—including companies—involved in the democratic process and reducing a political party's reliance on a small number of large donations.The joint standing committee also recommended that the income tax law be amended to provide that donations to an independent candidate at a federal or state election are tax deductible, at the same level as donations to registered political parties. The government has also accepted this recommendation. This will provide an equivalence of treatment between independent candidates and members and political parties.To implement these recommendations, the bill repeals the existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that apply to contributions to political parties and inserts a new subdivision that applies to both contributions to political parties and gifts to independent members and candidates. The bill also allows taxpayers to make tax deductible contributions to political parties that are registered under state or territory electoral legislation. This expansion will complement the tax concession afforded to independent candidates and members.The amendments made by the bill will apply to contributions to political parties and gifts to independent candidates and members made on or after 1 July 1998. It is anticipated that implementation of these recommendations of the joint standing committee will increase the number of Australians involved in the democratic process and reduce a political party's reliance on large donations. The measures contained in the bill complement the election funding of political parties and provide an equivalence of treatment between donations to political parties and donations to independents.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills4070r5314070Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Gareth Evans moved by way of amendment: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".09:57:004070Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—To conclude my remarks, the government has got the nation back on track. We have come through the recession that we had to have. The books of the nation are now balanced. As I said in my opening remarks in this speech, to come from a $10.3 billion deficit to a $2.7 billion surplus is a turnaround of $13 billion—a remarkable achievement in two years.Having been through the pain of recent years, we need to look to a vision for Australia beyond the coming election. I would like to conclude my remarks on this suggestion: I believe that, with asset sales and with the budget now in surplus—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You want to sell Telstra.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—The member for Banks might even support me in this for once. There is a great need for a national infrastructure fund. I think we need to see in this country an ability to fire up the imagination and to harness the dynamic people of this country to create a vision. We have spent too much time over the last decade looking at our navels and being the playthings of vociferous minority groups. I think a national vision is urgently required.I would suggest that such a fund—perhaps in the order of $2 billion—should be used to build dams, standardise railway lines, build bridges and look for innovative measures which might conceivably fire up the vision of the people of this country and create employment. There are a number of projects in my own electorate of Hinkler but, in particular, the Paradise Dam west of Bundaberg would be a huge enhancement to our sugar and small crop industries. It could lift the current in come from those industries from some $250 million to conceivably twice that amount. On that note, I commend the bill to the House and very much support the budget measures.09:58:004071O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—During my opportunity to speak this morning on this Appropriation Bill, I want to refer in particular to the appropriations that are made available for the carrying through of the government's role in what I now describe as the waterfront fiasco. I describe it in that way because I do not think it is appropriate for the national government of Australia to involve itself in the activities of a company which strips its assets in order to leave the employees in a holding company that does not even have the money left to cover their entitlements. I do not believe it is responsible for the national government to be involved with a company which breaks the government's own employment laws, as has been found in both the Federal Court and the High Court. I do not think a company that employs balaclava clad security guards with guard dogs to patrol the workplace is an appropriate organisation for the government to be linked with. I do not think that is the way we do business in Australia, and most Australians feel the same.Were I to take the time this morning, I could go through a number of very interesting facts about actual performance on the waterfront, compared to the total deception that has been perpetrated from the box on the other side of the House, particularly by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). I give just one example. In late 1996, the Patrick workers employed in Melbourne entered into an enterprise bargain—co-signed by the MUA and Corrigan—with their employer. It was a normal enterprise bargain, the same as operates in any other business. That enterprise bargain contained a number of provisions. One was an agreement that the employees of Patrick in Melbourne would work to certain productivity targets. They would change the work practices and seek to achieve certain productivity goals. If they reached those productivity goals—that is, if they did more work than the enterprise bargain provided for them to achieve during the three-year period—they would be paid a bonus. The Patrick workers in Melbourne achieved their productivity bonus for 38 of the 42 weeks leading up to the night they were sacked and locked out.The minister for workplace relations has stood here in the House talking about people getting $90,000 a year for 15 hours of work, when the award rate is $36,000, and anything on top of it is overtime and other pay according to their conditions. The minister has talked about the lies or misinformation that have been perpetrated—never once telling anybody in Australia that the Patrick workers in Melbourne achieved their productivity bonuses agreed to by Corrigan for 38 out of 42 weeks leading up to the night they were sacked.There are a number of issues we could cover in this debate, but I particularly want to go to something else that has taken my attention: what on earth has gone on behind the asset stripping and the ownership of these companies? We all understand that what Patrick did was separate its normal company operations employing wharfies by setting them up in a holding company, making that the labour company and employing the workers there. You might ask: why would you even do that? Why would you put your employees in a separate company? Answer: so you could strip the assets out of it, leave it with no money, and leave them stuck out there employed by a company that has no money to pay them when you terminate their employment. That was the first part of the arrangement.Then you ask: who is doing this? Who actually owns Patrick? Suddenly you find, when you look at the corporate securities information, that Patrick is not Patrick. It is another company—a company called Lang, the Lang Corporation—that owns Patrick. So it is the Lang Corporation that is actually making the decisions that run Patrick. But who owns Lang? And here is the rub. When you consult corporate information as to who owns Lang, you find that the majority shareholder is not Scanlon or Corrigan or any of those characters; the majority shares are owned by a consortium of financial institu tions. They own 38.2 per cent of the shareholding—the majority share. Those financial institutions include organisations such as Westpac, BT, Chase Manhattan, AMP, National Mutual, WorkCover Victoria, Permanent Trustees, the National Bank and ANZ Nominees.So you then ask: why on earth would Australia's premier financial institutions be all holding shares in a stevedoring company that is not performing very well? These are supposed to be the smart money men of Australia. And we have seen the Patrick share price fall over the last couple of years from $3 a share to $1.80 a share. Any smart investor out there says, `Hang on. If the share price is going down and the company is not making profits, this is not a place for me to be with my money. I should sell my shares and go and put the money somewhere better.' That would be the normal pattern of events. When you look at AMP in particular, that is exactly what they did. In July last year they sold their shares and ceased to become a significant shareholder, as did BT.Another little twist: in January this year they bought the shares back again, as did a whole lot of institutions buy back into a dog stevedoring company. That leads to several inferences which I am going to trace through in a minute. I looked at this and thought: what on earth are the financial institutions doing being majority shareholders in a company which behaves like this, especially when those very same institutions took exception to the way Coles Myer was conducting its affairs and intervened in the affairs of Coles Myer, demanding broad restructuring, replacement of certain people and a completely new corporate plan? They did not sell their shares and go away; they actually moved in and demanded that Coles Myer lift its game.In the case of Pacific Dunlop, these institutional investors also moved in and demanded that the show change its game. But here we find that the majority of shareholders in a company which has broken the government's laws—left employees stripped of assets, employed security guards wearing balaclavas and used guard dogs—have actually bought more shares. You have to say to yourself: what the hell is going on here?So I wrote to all these organisations and asked them questions about their shareholdings. I make this point. Many of these companies hold superannuation funds. Every worker in Australia at the moment has seven per cent of their pay go off to these superannuation funds. This is workers' money going into companies which are investing in a show that does over the workers like this. There are ethical issues here about how a company that holds billions of dollars of workers' superannuation funds should behave in relation to workers. I have been a passionate advocate of compulsory superannuation, but there are responsibilities that are incumbent on the companies holding these funds. So I wrote to them and said:Whether or not it is superannuation or other publicly raised funds, I believe that institutions which hold this capital have a duty to ensure that the companies they invest in conduct themselves appropriately in our economy.I assume that as substantial shareholders in Lang, the `institution investors' are represented on the board and have been parties to, or aware of, the decisions taken in the lead up to the events which occurred. If so, warning bells should have rung—and this is to the managing directors—and you or someone senior in the organisation should have been informed.And I asked the question:Am I right to assume therefore, that the Patricks scam was conducted with the approval of the institutional investors or have they collectively turned a blind eye to corporate conduct which is unbecoming in our community.. . . . . . . . .Obviously it does not remain as just a question of prior knowledge of the Patrick corporate activities.That is around the conspiracy case. Remember, many of the characters had prior knowledge that these men were going to be sacked—and there has already been the banking syndicate involved in this in the Federal Court and the High Court; that has all been flushed out—whether or not they put money in or were financial institutions which conspired to hold the share price up. The point is this: the government's worst nightmare in this is that these institutions may have lost their nerve and said, `We don't want anything to do with this, we don't want to be a shareholder of an organisation that does these things, we don't want to be named in the federal parliament'—exactly as is happening now.If they had said to themselves, `We don't want to be in any of this,' the smart thing to do would be to sell the shares, to get out of them. Why would they not do that? Because the government's worst nightmare is that, if those people sell those shares and the share price falls, the controlling interest in Patrick would then be bought by somebody else who may even be friendly to the MUA. It could be a P&O, it could be a Sealand or it could be a Lindsay Fox. It could be another transport operator who buys the shares and says, `We can do business with the MUA.' That is the government's absolutely worst nightmare. That would mean the collapse of the whole waterfront fiasco.I believe that a number of these financial institutions had prior knowledge and actually agreed to support the share price. That is why, when they have been put under pressure, they have stayed in there. I will say a bit more about that in a minute. So I wrote to these managers back on 22 April and said to them:Obviously it does not remain as just a question of prior knowledge of the Patrick corporate activities. They are now very public knowledge and the question which then follows is what steps the institutional investors have taken since to insulate themselves from becoming implicated, by virtue of their shareholdings.I will not go through all them in the parliament, but I have had replies from six or seven of these organisations. You would reckon they had all rung each other up and worked out exactly the same script to send to me.In order to reinforce that point, let me refer to one of the replies which I received. I refer to the reply from the Victorian WorkCover Authority. They all said the same thing, so this is representative. WorkCover said that external fund managers are appointed. They say, `As a financial institution, we put the money with an external fund manager; we don't involve ourselves in what goes on in the companies we are investing in.' Remember Coles Myer; remember Pacific Dunlop? They have all said to me, `We don't involve ourselves in what goes on in these companies. We give the money to an external funds manager and he operates it on our behalf.' WorkCover, in their letter to me, stated:In the general course of events, the Authority—this is, WorkCover Victoria—does not ask for detailed information about the breakdown of companies in which the fund managers invest . . .They all say they are not represented on the board and they all say they take no part in the active decisions of the operation. It is a uniform response from them all. I have to say that it is an extraordinarily hands-off investment strategy for companies which otherwise feel no compunction at all about intervening as they did in the example of Coles Myer and Pacific Dunlop.I then look, for instance, at AMP. I find AMP a particularly interesting case, because anyone who follows this stuff will tell you that AMP are what you call a quantitative investor. They don't just rush in and buy shares somewhere and then sell them, and then buy them again, and in and out. AMP sit down and do a strong actuarial analysis of a company. They take a long-term view about how it is likely to perform, they buy their shares on that basis and they stick with their judgment. That is what you call a long-term, quantitative investor.Some years ago, AMP bought into Lang and they stayed there. But last July, they made a decision that there was no point staying with them, so they started to wind down their shareholding. In winding down their shareholding they were opting out, and that is normal behaviour for AMP. But what did AMP do then? In January this year, absolutely out of context with anything else they do, they bought back in. For some reason, they bought back in.The inference is this: AMP were absolutely reliant on the support of the government for their demutualisation. One of the biggest issues going on for AMP at the moment is the support of the government for the demutualisation of the organisation, with billions of dollars involved.The question remains: was there a meeting at any time between AMP and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), or AMP and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) where AMP were given the message that they were required, in order to have government support for the demutualisation, to buy back into Lang Patrick and support the share price of Lang Patrick? That is the question that now arises out of the corporate behaviour of AMP in this whole operation.As I said earlier, the role of the financial institutions in this whole scam is going to become a central focus during the next few weeks and, in particular, the role of AMP and whether those meetings took place between the Prime Minister and AMP in the lead-up to the conspiracy which led to the sacking of the workers. They are questions that will be asked in this parliament during the next few weeks.10:18:004074Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I hope that people in my electorate will forgive me if I pass up the opportunity to talk about the government's budget. I take this opportunity to reflect on what I perceive to be the challenges for us as a parliament over the next few years and also to reflect on what I have seen to be the standards of behaviour in the chamber over the last three years. In particular, I pay tribute—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In view of what the member is now saying, I suggest that is out of order. This is a debate on the appropriations. It is not a debate about the standards of this House. In anticipating what the member is going to say, I would ask you to thoroughly counsel him to stay within the standing orders.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I am sure the honourable member for North Sydney will be within the standing orders because this is a debate on the Appropriation Bill, so a general debate is allowed under the standing orders. The honourable member for Banks might refer to the standing orders.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, I was going to say some nice things about some members on the other side. Upon reflection, I might not do that. However, I am feeling very gracious this morning, particularly towards the member for Banks (Mr Melham). I must have had a late night; I feel a little disoriented.There is a considerable amount of debate at the moment amongst members about what sort of chamber we wish to have. It is important to reflect on this matter in the circumstances, because there is no more significant career achievement which an individual can have than to have the opportunity to represent, in my case, 130,000 people in this parliament. When I first walked into this chamber, there is no doubt that I thought it was an awesome environment. It is an amphitheatre, if you like, with the high-backed seats and the very large distance, for example, between me, as a new member—if I were located any further back, I would be sitting in the gallery—and the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese), who is also a new member, who sits a good 40 metres away. Yet we are expected, in an environment in which there may only be a few people present, to have an interchange of ideas and to debate ideas which are obviously in the best interests of the nation.Unquestionably, we have a chamber—a magnificent building—that has been built for the future, but the problem is that it has no heart. That is very frustrating. At the time of an election you are in an environment of confrontation, in a spirit of confrontation. You are endeavouring to win a seat from a member of the opposition. Having been elected to the House, and having previously seen the five-second grabs on late night TV of a very aggressive—even tortured—environment in question time, you say to yourself, `What does it really mean? What are we meant to do in the House—engage in debate or in confrontation?' Unfortunately, it is confrontation. I share the disappointment of many people about question time. I sit some distance from the main table. The interchange across the table is barely heard up here, but I can hear and see the nastiness between members of the opposition and the government, the nastiness that pervades the atmosphere at question time.I read a column by Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled `The decline and fall of parliament'. He referred to the very impassioned speech by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) on the waterfront dispute. It is pleasing to hear passion—sometimes aggressive passion—in a speech. I can accept that in a sense, but I think that we need to create a forum where there is a real interchange of ideas and policy. Unfortunately, with the developments between the House of Representatives and the Senate over the last few years, we have seen the House of Representatives, in a policy sense, become totally dominated by the executive. The Senate has become the chamber where policy is debated in detail. There is no real detailed policy debate in the House of Representatives, although we make up the numbers. As a new member—and, perhaps, a new generation of members—I find that extremely frustrating.I also find it frustrating that this generation has been handed down this situation by the previous generation—yet the previous generation is the first to lament existing standards. I have inherited this; I have not had much of a chance to do anything about it. I felt a great sense of frustration when I gave my maiden speech, which focused on the things that I really believe in—the policy principles that I am going to apply to my career. I was followed immediately by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), who made a number of grandiose, incorrect and misleading statements and untruths, yet she was the focus of the nation. I am not lamenting that I was not the focus of the nation, but I am reflecting that it is important that we set down our principles in our maiden speeches.Some of the great names that were a part of the eighties, a part of the seventies and, in the case of the Speaker, a part of the sixties, will shortly be leaving this chamber. It is frustrating that they will not pass on to us something which is as good as what they might have had. There has been a gradual deterioration of parliamentary standards, which I think can be linked to television. It was not just due to the fact that the former member for Blaxland, the previous Prime Minister, had a roster system for his ministry during question time; it was a gradual deterioration over a period of time. It could have been the result of a different environment or that we televise debates.A good suggestion made by the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) is that perhaps we should not have speaking lists. I think there is a good case for not have speaking lists. If members have to seek the call—in a competitive environment—there would be more members in the chamber. After all, people expect us to be in here.Furthermore, the older generation has also provided us with the system of entitlements. For that, I can never forgive them. When I became a member of parliament, I was expected to have an understanding of my new role as a member, my entitlements and how to use them—through the airconditioning ducts in my new office. If you rang the Department of Administrative Services, as it was at the time, and asked: `What can I use this for?' they would say, `I'm not so sure, but you can use it for that, and you can use it for that, and you might be able to use it for that.'As a new member, you rely on oral advice or a wink and a nod from someone about what is appropriate. As a corporate lawyer, whether in the private or public sectors in New South Wales, I was never given instructions like that. I find it totally inappropriate that we are not given definitive instructions about our entitlements—the grey areas, as they are still being called. They are there to help us further the interests of our electors. At the same time, we have had the debacle that occurred with the travel allowances over the last 12 months. It has got to the stage where it confirms the very worst views of members of the public about members of parliament.The previous generation, the older generation, has passed on to us a system that is extremely difficult to understand. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am ever provided with the opportunity, you can rest assured, and the people of North Sydney can rest assured, that I will not simply be relying on a wink and a nod to implement an entitlement system for MPs. I would like to thank my predecessor in the seat of North Sydney, Mr Ted Mack, who sat with me after I was elected and took me through a lot of the various entitlements.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And he went an extra term to make sure that you got the nomination.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—There were a few other things that he managed to leave out, which is quite frustrating, but I suppose I learned from those experiences.Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a minute, if the whip will give me an understanding moment, to pay tribute to those people who are leaving the House at the end of this term. Obviously we do not know when an election will be called, but I would like to thank them for what they have given me as a new member. There are several people I may miss, but I would like to begin by thanking the member for Fowler (Mr Ted Grace), who is going to help me set up the Armenian-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Committee. He has been someone I have always found to be very entertaining and informative. In his electorate he probably has the most difficult area in Australia to represent, Cabramatta, yet he has done it with dignity. I would like to thank him for that. I would also like to thank the member for Charlton, Bob Brown. I have had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. He is a very interesting fellow, and he is a very passionate person with great dignity as well.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He wrote a good economics text, too.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Whilst I might not agree with some of his economic arguments, I think he is a man of integrity. He has represented Hunter and Charlton since 1980, and I think we will sadly miss his experience as a former minister. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration with the member for Gellibrand, Ralph Willis. I have found him to be a man of great integrity and honesty. He obviously has his place in Australian history. He has held some very difficult portfolios, but I have always found the member for Gellibrand to be a very genuine person in the advice that he provides. His experience has been invaluable to a number of the younger people on the financial institutions committee who for the first time have had to go through a very interesting and challenging role—that is, to cross-examine the Governor of the Reserve Bank about interest rates and various other forms of monetary policy.One of the pleasures of this parliament has been the opportunity to get to know the member for Lalor, Barry Jones. In this combative environment, there is not often an opportunity to sit down with someone and have a yarn about the world. However, and people might not know this, he is the President of the Labor Party and yet one day he came into the government alcove where a number of us were sitting and we started chatting about what happened in the 1970s and the 1980s in parliament. I found it extremely informative and very interesting. That is one of a number of occasions when I have had the opportunity to speak with the member for Lalor, and I thank him for that.It is funny when you are watching a documentary and you see someone like the member for Melbourne Ports, Clyde Holding, come up. He was Leader of the Opposition in Victoria at the time of the execution of Ronald Ryan. I am yet to have a chance to speak with the member for Melbourne Ports, but with him go great experience and great knowledge. Obviously others, such as the member for Bendigo (Mr Reid), the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), the member for Groom (Mr Taylor), the member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) and the member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), will be going.There are two other people I would particularly like to thank and to pay tribute to. The first is the former Speaker, the member for Casey, Bob Halverson. I have found Bob to be a great guy. He is a man of great experience who has gone through some very difficult times, obviously, but as Chief Opposition Whip and then as Speaker he made a great contribution to this House, and I wish him well for the future. I would also like to pay tribute to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the current Speaker. I walked into my first division in this place and sat down next to him, and asked, `How long have you been here?' He said, `When I was sitting here for the first time, Ming was standing at the dispatch box.'4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Before you were born!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Yes, the right honourable member for New England entered this House before I was born and he has gone through 14 general elections, which is quite astounding. I think we will all sorely miss his experience and his contribution to the House. I think it is the end of a generation. He is the last person to have been here since the 1960s. I think a new generation has not done enough to learn from someone like that. What we have to do is to find some way that the new generation can continue to learn from the older generation, recognising their flaws, while at the same time seeking to improve upon their best points. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to thank those people for their great contributions to this House.10:35:004077Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Given my shadow ministerial responsibilities and the time constraints that have been imposed on this debate, my comments this morning on the 1998 federal budget will concentrate on the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. This portfolio is a key support to over half a million Australians—260,000 veterans who receive a DVA pension, 160,000 partners or dependants of theirs and a further 100,000 war widows. More than a third of a million hold a gold or white card that entitles them to hospital, medical and dental treatment at DVA expense. Projected portfolio expenditure in 1998-99 is some $7.25 billion.Whilst veterans were frequently mentioned by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), budget night actually revealed only two new and quite modest spending initiatives for veterans—additional funding for continuing building works at the Australian War Memorial and the flow-on cost to DVA of the wider increase in Medicare fees for GP consultations.Other measures of interest to veterans and war widows had, of course, already been announced prior to the budget by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), frantic to restore his plummeting standing amongst, and credibility with, older Australians in general, and amongst veterans and war widows in particular. These pre-budget efforts included his 26 March statement regarding war widows pensions and his further announcement on 26 April regarding the gold card.HT4McLACHLANMr McLachlan—Nonsense!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The minister opposite might interject that it is rubbish, but the clear reality understood by every commentator and clearly indicated to this government in every poll is that the decline in their support amongst older Australians, a key ingredient in their last electoral victory, is because of their decisions with regard to nursing and aged care.I mention in passing that this year we are also privy—courtesy of the Financial Review of 4 May—to summary contents of the budget submission of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) to the Expenditure Review Committee. Whilst naturally interested in the defeats that have been inflicted on the minister, I was particularly struck by the omissions from his proposals, given that the 1998 budget will clearly be the last in the coalition's term of office.I wondered if the minister had forgotten that John Howard had, in February 1996, promised war widows that a coalition government would review the frozen rate of the income support supplement and the denial of assistance to those who remarried prior to 1984. I thought that surely the minister remembered that his party had solemnly promised veterans that the coalition would review the list of eligible drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, with a view to increasing the number. This government had subsequently actually removed various treatments for diarrhoea, fungal infections, stomach cramps and vomiting from the PBS, saving the government $6.2 million.Reading further into the submissions of the minister and the coverage of it in the Financial Review, I noted that his submission contained no reference to overseas service anomalies. I thus concluded that the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) had obviously failed to remind the minister forcibly enough of his—Mr Tuckey's—promises to `review the genuine and significant anomalies in veterans' entitlements which have been of longstanding concern to the veterans community'. Quite frankly, the member for O'Connor did not say that once or twice—he made that commitment endlessly and constantly around this country.These anomalies include repatriation benefits for the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, the Far East Strategic Reserve and service at Ubon Air Base in Thailand. These have sunk into the quagmire of Minister Bishop's endless list of ongoing murky reviews and inquiries. This one has now been going on for eight months since Senator Tambling gave commitments to look at the FESR and Ubon.Regrettably, I could not find any evidence either of the minister seeking the necessary funding from cabinet to convert the Veterans' Entitlement Act into `plain English'—a measure that was described by the Prime Minister of this country in February 1996 as being `an important priority for a Coalition Government'. Three budgets later, nothing has been done. Enough, however, of the body blow to the coalition's credibility dealt by the leak in the Financial Review.I now turn to each of the veterans related measures that the coalition has announced over the past few weeks. I come first to the welcome announcement on 26 March that the average weekly earnings driven pension rise would be extended to war widows, who had been excluded from the government's original legislation. This measure will cost $163.7 million over four years and has the opposition's full and total support. I have already spoken at length on the topic during debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 and I will therefore not say anything further about it this morning.The next prime ministerial announcement was that the repatriation gold card would be extended next January—that is in 1999—to all veterans aged 70 and over who had faced hostile forces of the enemy in the Second World War. This announcement follows Labor's early significant extension of full treatment benefits to World War I veterans in 1973 and to Second World War ex-servicewomen in 1987. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, constantly refers to the time period between the end of World War I and the extension of full treatment benefits to veterans of that war as the precedent for the decision on the gold card for Second World War veterans.I welcome the latest extension as a positive measure that will benefit some 50,000 veterans, including 17,000 who currently enjoy more restricted treatment benefits from the white card. The net cost of this extension is considerable, even after allowing for offsetting reductions in general PBS and Medicare outlays. The final cost to the budget is predicted to be approximately $480 million over four years. I have made it clear that the opposition fully supports the extension and that a Beazley Labor government will honour it in full.It is a fact of life that any concession to one group raises demands from those who missed out. Since the Prime Minister's announcement on the gold card, I have been deluged with requests—and I would say that many members on both sides of the parliament are in this situation—from groups and individuals seeking further extensions. Prominent amongst these have been the suggestion to give the gold card to all allied veterans, many of whom, as they would argue, are Australian citizens who have lived here for decades.Others seeking it have been those who were prevented from serving in war zones. Their contention is that they had signed up to go overseas to face hostile forces and had been prevented. Others seeking it have been the spouses of veterans, all veterans of the Korean and Vietnam wars who are over 70 years of age and who have qualifying service for time other than the Second World War. In other words, there are a significant number of groups and individuals out there arguing that they should have the extension.I certainly have particular sympathy for the situation of the last mentioned group—those who went to Korea and are aged over 70 years. The fact of life is that, post World War I, Australia was not involved in a significant international conflict which is comparable to either of the world wars. I think that both sides of politics have perhaps disregarded the reality that the Korean War followed very soon after the Second World War and we do have a significant number of people in that category who are over 70 years of age. However, the recent extension involved, as I have already mentioned, a very considerable cost. Whilst the opposition is happy to consider sound proposals, it would be unsustainable to constantly extend the gold card to more and more groups. Apart from anything else, such an approach could soon endanger the continuation of the level of benefits enjoyed by current cardholders.I now turn to the third pre-budget announcement affecting veterans; namely, the claimed extra $600 million for hospital treatment of entitled veterans. I plainly indicate that this `claimed' measure simply cannot be accepted at face value. For weeks, the coalition has repeatedly claimed that state and territory governments have been offered an extra $750 million over five years for the hospital treatment costs of entitled veterans.Claims to this effect were made in question time by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) on 23 March, by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 25 March, and by the Prime Minister again on 6 April. None of these gentlemen has had the honesty and decency to admit that their government has previously implemented cuts of $800 million in public hospital funding. As further details of the Commonwealth offer emerged, courtesy of disaffected state coalition health ministers, it turns out that the offer involves Veterans' Affairs meeting the hospital treatment costs of entitled veterans in contracted private as well as public hospitals.This continues Labor's initiative, implemented as part of the process of the Commonwealth relinquishing control of repatriation hospitals, to extend to veterans the option of receiving treatment in contracted private hospitals. I am thus not calling this mechanism into question, but I point out that, even with access to the budget papers, it is far from clear how much of the earmarked funding for hospital treatment of veterans will flow through to public hospitals. The veterans affairs portfolio budget statement contains no such breakdown. It merely provides a single line item for estimated expenditure on `veter ans hospital and health services', which covers a raft of separate elements.State health ministers have reputedly calculated that much less than half of the money will flow to them, with a majority going to the private hospital sector. This should not be of surprise, given the government's largesse to the private nursing home operators. As I say, the point we are making today did not come out of the Labor Party national conference. It did not come out of the Labor Party caucus. It is a fundamental point made by different coalition health ministers around this country at a state level. As I stated on budget night, if the Commonwealth's public hospital Medicare offer is as generous as the coalition claims, it is remarkable that so many coalition state health ministers have rejected it totally as being misleading and inadequate.The next issue that I want to address is the government's plans to clamp down on Vietnam veterans' disability pension claims for service related psychiatric conditions. In last year's budget, the Treasurer announced that the coalition would seek to save almost $16 million over four years through the introduction of a system of panel diagnosis, particularly of pension claims for post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. The measure, which was due to start last November, was predicted to reduce the number of successful pension claims by approximately 150 cases a year.The ex-service community clearly did not support the panel diagnosis proposal, which had overtones of doctor shopping on DVA's part. Prior to this budget, it had been understood that the minister had agreed not to proceed with the original proposal. The opposition was surprised, therefore, when neither the official budget measures paper nor the DVA budget kit made any reference whatsoever to the status of the proposal. Normally any amendments to previous years' budget announcements are noted in the budget papers, and the estimated resulting increase or reduction outlays is quantified.Several days later, when the veterans affairs portfolio budget statement was tabled in the Senate, we were provided with the barest indication of the current situation regarding the PTSD crackdown. On page 35 appears a table headed `Variations to program 1—underlying outlays 1997-98 to 1998-99'. Dot point 6 says that they would `introduce second opinion for certain conditions', and this is recorded as reducing disability pension outlays this financial year by $2.45 million. This seems to be the remnant of the panel diagnosis proposal of the minister with only a slightly reduced budget saving. What is outrageous is that there is no subsequent page reference or explanation of the proposal.This is totally unsatisfactory. We had the minister telling us in question time on Monday that he would `leave no stone unturned' in following up the recent disturbing findings of the Vietnam veterans' health study. At the same time, he promised the Treasurer that he, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, a supposed representative of veterans, will save $2.45 million next financial year on the same Vietnam veterans' disability pension claims, and then he compounded his duplicity by refusing to tell the veteran community, or this parliament, exactly how his system of second opinion for certain conditions will actually operate. So, after all the rhetoric, all the sloganising, with regard to what we owe these people from Vietnam for their suffering, their pain, the outcomes of this health study, he seems to be proceeding in a very underhanded, subterranean way with this panel diagnosis proposal, which essentially is aimed to stop many of these same people succeeding with disability claims.We all know one of the other thrusts of this government seen around the states of this Commonwealth is their attack on legal aid. We can see in Queensland, in New South Wales and, in particular, in Victoria, at this stage, significant changes to the rights of all veterans in this country to proceed to their day in court against this government or any government with regard to their rights to disability pensions and other matters in the portfolio. So all the rhetoric about what we owe people is summarised in action by these kinds of attacks on their rights.Looking at the budget as a whole, it is clear that the reaction to the coalition's disastrous changes to nursing homes and pharmaceutical benefits has forced the government to suggest some positive sweeteners to veterans and war widows. I am confident, however, that most veterans and war widows well understand that they are still hit by exorbitant nursing home entry charges, charges which the private industry, which is so powerful with regard to this government, are saying are not high enough. Indisputably, they will be increased at a later stage when the people who have reminded the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) and others of how generous they have been to the government with regard to political donations get their way.Aged people in this country would further recall that their pharmaceutical benefits have been drastically cut over the last few years. They would note that legal aid funding has been slashed, thus reducing their capacity to fight for their pension rights. They would further be aware and take on board that the government pocketed over $5 million by delaying an overdue reduction in mortgage rates for war service homes. Equally, I continue to be inundated with complaints about the government's inaction on nuclear veterans and on the health of the Vietnam veterans. Above all, the ex-service community will not forget the broken promises that flow from the coalition's 1996 election veterans affairs policy statement, ironically titled `Lest we forget'.22:51:004080Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I was very interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), about the veterans and what is happening to them. Since becoming the member for Lilley, I have had to advocate on behalf of many, many, many veterans whose cases, to get some sort of recognition from the Veterans Review Board, have been four, five and six years in the pipeline. I had one case where a veteran was 92 years of age and he had spent six years waiting for recognition. I am grateful to say that that gentleman's recognition has come through and he is feeling much more content.I find it hypocritical that the opposition are making these comments about veterans. They had 13 years to attend to those veterans who had been suffering from nuclear exposure and those sorts of things, and they did absolutely nothing. They sat there and did absolutely nothing, and kept so many of these veterans waiting for their rightful rewards.The 1998-99 budget meets the government's commitment to return the budget to surplus in its first term of office. The government can use this surplus and the prospective surpluses to pay off the debts left to the nation by Labor. In returning the budget to surplus, the government has focused on keeping spending under control. We have not resorted to increasing the tax burden on Australians and, for the third year in a row, the budget contains no increases in income tax, no increase in the company tax rate, no increase in wholesale sales tax and no increase in petrol excise.Even though we have put the government's finances in order by being careful with spending, we are still able to target areas of need. One of those areas is health, and today I would like to address the issue of child immunisation in Australia. Over the past 10 weeks I have had a student from ANU, Janet Macnamara, in my office who compiled a report on this issue in response to the unacceptably low child immunisation levels currently recorded in Australia. In 1995 the ABS reported Australia's child immunisation levels as being 53 per cent, placing Australia third last among Western nations and well below many developing nations.In recent years, much effort has been put into devising strategies which would successfully improve child immunisation levels in Australia. Immunisation is a public health issue and, as such, comes under our government's responsibility. The coalition government's `Immunise Australia: The seven point plan'—released in the 1997-98 budget and subsequently followed by further measures in the recent 1998-99 budget—is a coherent package which addresses the key problem areas of Australia's child immunisation system. The main focus of this government's initiatives is towards education—education of parents, providers and the community at large. The great need for education can be seen as a function of Australia's low child immunisation levels alone. However, a closer look at the issue highlights some alarming statistics.The Immunisation Schedule recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council begins a child on a series of vaccinations from the age of three months right through to school age. It has been found that, while a vast majority of infants begin the recommended schedule, less than 20 per cent are likely to complete it. This means that a majority of children are not fully immunised and that, of the 53 per cent who supposedly are, many are not completing the schedule on time.Studies have revealed that parents are inadequately informed of the many aspects of immunisation, such as when immunisation is due, where the child can be immunised, the diseases vaccination prevents and the nature of the vaccines themselves. The provision of education through federal strategies—such as the mass media campaign and the public relations strategy begun last year and the immunisation awareness days—are invaluable in supporting parents who require more information. Much support has been indicated in the Canberra region for these strategies, in particular for the dramatic television commercials featuring a baby coughing violently with whooping cough.Misconceptions of the safety of vaccines are also playing an increasing role in the attitude of parents towards immunisation. The most pertinent example is the whole cell pertussis vaccine administered in the trivalent DTP vaccine, which is associated with a minute percentage of adverse reactions. Around 20 per cent of infants who receive the DTP vaccine experience mild side effects, 0.1 per cent may experience convulsions and one in a million may develop encephalitis. While these statistics appear frightening to parents of young children, they are insignificant when compared to the severity of the whooping cough disease itself—where one in 200 infants six months and under suffering from the whooping cough infection die from pneumonia or brain damage.Last year, New South Wales experienced a devastating whooping cough epidemic, where 2,500 children contracted the disease and six died. This epidemic can conceivably be attributed to the low levels of DTP vaccination that are well below other vaccine levels. The experience of the New South Wales epidemic obviously demonstrates the benefit of full child immunisation and the great need for educating parents.In an effort to increase community awareness, this government has designated $6.6 million for an Internet `megahub' which will provide a two-way flow of information, communication and education on health issues, policies, services and research in Australia. Much importance has been placed on research, with an ongoing level of funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council of $165 million a year.It is through education that many other aspects of Australia's immunisation system can be addressed. The most vulnerable groups in the community with respect to child immunisation are minority groups—Australia's indigenous and migrant populations. Whilst success has been reported for immunisation coverage in certain remote Aboriginal communities, indigenous people are nevertheless particularly susceptible to the transmission of diseases, such as Haemophilus Influenzae type b, or Hib. Special attention is therefore needed from us as a government and from the community to provide the necessary health programs. The recent 1998-99 budget acknowledges this by committing $72.6 million over four years towards combating the levels of infectious diseases in the indigenous population and providing free Hib and pneumonococcal vaccinations to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 50.Unlike the apparent success of vaccine coverage among indigenous Australians, migrant groups remain particularly vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases due to the practicalities of culture and language barriers. Migrants are also an at-risk group to vaccine preventable diseases, particularly rubella and Hib infection. In general, there is a lack of appropriate strategies that specifically address the needs of Australian migrants. Such strategies should be able to identify at-risk infants in the community, provide adequate education and service and monitor the resulting immuni sation levels. The widespread provision of multilingual community health nurses and other such providers could prove invaluable to the provision of services and a subsequent improvement to immunisation levels in our migrant communities. Not only is parental awareness of immunisation issues proving detrimental to Australia's immunisation levels, but more mundane practical difficulties have also been highlighted as preventing adequate immunisation. Effort needs to be put into providing out of hours services for working parents and mobile immunisation units for parents who have transport difficulties, for example. Provision for an on-the-spot immunisation service may also prove beneficial, as it has been said that 83 per cent of parents would support such a service.Of particular concern to the government is the adequacy of health services for Australia's rural communities. A $2.3 million rural multipurpose health and family services network is currently being established in which the immunisation needs of each rural community can be addressed.This government has focused its efforts not only on parents and the general community but very importantly on the GPs themselves. GPs are key providers, providing over 60 per cent of all immunisations and seeing 93 per cent of nought to six year olds on an average seven times in a year. This places them in a prime position to monitor the immunisation status of each child.The 1998-99 budget outlined a new practices incentive program which is to replace the original better practices program. The new incentives, totalling $812 million over four years, will reward practices that make a commitment to providing high quality care for their patients. It has been established that providers themselves play a considerable role in Australia's low child immunisation coverage by not correctly administering and handling vaccines according to the NHMRC guidelines. In addition, the proper monitoring and evaluation of immunisation targets depends solely on the accurate reporting by the providers of the occurrence of disease, as well as the adverse reactions to vaccines. This government has addressed the issue of child immunisation by grasping the fundamental weaknesses in the system and implementing strategies and setting targets for much improved outcomes.My speech has outlined the firm commitment of this government to protecting Australian children from many vaccine preventable diseases that exist in our society. The previous government painted itself as socially responsible, yet failed to achieve any improved outcomes in indigenous health. The previous government had an ad hoc approach to public health, while this government is backing its commitment to preventative health with the biggest funding package ever for public health. This government will not `tax and spend' indiscriminately. We are committed to improving health outcomes, not just committed to satisfying the consciences of inner city intellectuals. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on a budget that provides security, safety and stability for all of us.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Miscellaneous4083Motion (by Mr Andrew)—by leave—proposed:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 ;Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 ; andAppropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-9911:03:004083Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst I have personally on previous occasions indicated in this place that I am in principle opposed to the reference of the appropriation bills to the Main Committee, a view of which you are well aware, I am instructed and advise the House that, on this occasion, collectively, we indicate no objection to the motion moved by the Chief Government Whip.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4083r522Billsr521Bills4083Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.11:04:004083Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998 have been a long time coming into this chamber. The truth is that we are only considering them because Labor has forced the issue. In essence, these bills implement the announcement that we made on 3 November that we would put in place the key recommendations of the Willett anti-dumping report. We also moved a private member's bill which, I might say, the government refused to debate or, indeed, adopt at a time when we had indicated a preparedness to support, in a bipartisan way, through this parliament.Anti-dumping in this country is an issue that has been heightened because of the Asian economic crisis. The fact is that overproduction can lead to circumstances where product is dumped unfairly into our market jeopardising jobs—in particular, jobs in regional Australia. But, prior to the 1996 election, the coalition promised to shorten the maximum time allowed for anti-dumping complaints from 245 days to 155 days. That was an election promise. They then commissioned Lawrie Willett in June 1996 to recommend the means of achieving this end. His report came to the government in September 1996. So a report was commissioned in June, it was in the hands of the government in September 1996, and it is only today that we have the legislation before the parliament.The key recommendations which Mr Willett made were, firstly, that there should be a reduction in the maximum investigation time to 155 days or, in the case of some complex cases, 175 days. In other words, he was saying you could reduce the time in which an anti-dumping case was heard and determined. So his first recommendation was for that reduction.He then recommended that provisional measures—that is, measures that require the payment, in duty terms, of the equating price—could be imposed after 60 days of an investigation commencing. Obviously if the case is unsuccessful that money is repaid, but the point of being able to impose the provisional measures is that they do not continue to get advantage necessarily whilst the case is being heard. The current provision enables provisional measures to occur only after 100 days. The Willett recommendation was to reduce that to 60 days.The third recommendation was that a single stage investigation process be undertaken by Customs. At the moment we have this overlapping two-stage process in place whereby Customs deals with it, then the Anti-Dumping Authority deals with it, but consistently we have found that the Anti-Dumping Authority has tended to rehear cases all over again. What he recommended, however, was not just that there be a single stage but that Customs receive additional resources to carry out what would become an expanded role. That is important to note because in the recent budget papers presented before this parliament Customs has lost money. So, whilst this bill gives it an expanded role, which Willett recommended should carry with it additional resources, the budget does not allocate those additional resources.The fourth recommendation that he made was that a more stringent approach be adopted to seeking and verifying information from importers. In other words, this was an attempt to put the onus back on those bringing the products in to justify the costs of production and whether or not the price being charged was fair. Previously, the onus fell much more heavily on the company being affected, and in the circumstances of this amendment the onus of proof shifts.That was the set of recommendations that came to the government in September 1996. But the government, having got those clear recommendations—recommendations which we had indicated support for—did nothing. So, after a year of waiting, we decided that we should make the coalition do the right thing. We announced formally the adoption of the recommendations of the Willett report. On 24 November we introduced a private member's bill which put the Willett recommendations in place.It was only on 24 February, some three months later, that the government announced its response to the Willett report. The government position very closely matched that which Labor announced three months before. We at the time called on the government to urgently introduce its own legislation to implement the decision and, given the fact that they could get bipartisan support from us, which we are giving today in relation to this bill, this was clearly a matter that could have been dealt with a lot earlier than it has been.We consistently said that we would give expedition to the passage of this bill. It is a pity, therefore, that we now find ourselves restricted in time, with this bill being bunched up with something like 18 others to be rammed through this parliament in the space of a little over one week—some 21 bills have to be considered and debated in about 26 hours of sitting time. We were saying as far back as February, `We will give you support to get this through; bring it on.' It did not occur. As I understand it, the argument was that they needed to get the bill properly drafted, but the truth is that we already had a bill before the House, a bill which we had introduced back in November. So I would be very interested to hear from the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), when he responds in this debate, why the government has taken so long.We have agreement on both sides of the parliament to do something. We have a bill drafted, but here we are in May, almost seven months after that bill was drafted, and we are just getting around to debating it. The point I am making is that, whilst we welcome this piece of legislation, it should have been introduced a lot earlier, and Labor was promising to support it a lot earlier. Labor in fact took the initiative in drafting a piece of legislation that could have been adopted by this House.The bills that are before us do appear to meet the spirit of the Willett recommendations. It has modified the Willett approach in some cases, but the main provisions of the bill do abolish the Anti-Dumping Authority and transfer to Customs the responsibility for the conduct of the investigations. They do provide provisional measures being available after 60 days. The bill also provides for a 155-day total investigation timetable, including a `statement of essential facts' to be issued after 110 days, with 20 days for the party to respond to that and then 25 days for Customs to complete their investigation and make the recommendation to the minister. We welcome that part, and that is consistent with the Willett recommendations.The other important part of this legislation is that the investigators have the power to disregard late submissions, so they cannot be held up by people coming in after the event seeking to put in what they claim is new information but often is used as a delaying tactic. The bill also creates a new body, the Trade Measures Review Office, to review a dumping decision where parties feel a decision was flawed. This review will take 60 days but, importantly, will not reopen cases. It needs to be treated effectively as an appeal—that is, whether the decision taken was properly taken on the facts before it, not the ability to introduce new facts. That is an important change. We welcome that because the Anti-Dumping Authority, the body which is being abolished, on many occasions allowed the introduction of new material and reopened cases.Having said all the things we agree with, there are two matters of concern. The first is whether this new review body, the Trade Measures Review Office, will become a de facto Anti-Dumping Authority. I would be pleased to hear some expression of confidence from the minister that that is not to be the case. It is obviously not our intention to seek amendment in this regard—that would only delay the bill—but to make the point that we as an opposition will be closely monitoring how this body is functioning. Of course, were we fortunate enough to win the next election, we would be reviewing it from a different perspective.We are not concerned with the notion that there has to be some mechanism for review. Given the restriction of what the review can consider, it does give us cause for encouragement, but we will be watching carefully the way in which this new review body functions. That is the first point of concern.The second point of concern is whether the assurances on more stringent conditions applying to seeking and verifying information will be carried through. This again relates to the way in which the matter is processed once the structure is set in place, but it is another area that we will be paying attention to. In relation to anti-dumping as a policy measure, right from the start Labor's approach on this issue has been to safeguard thousands of Australian jobs from unfair international trading practices by strengthening the anti-dumping legislation, legislation which has been significantly eroded by this government's inaction. Anti-dumping measures are fundamentally designed to ensure fairness in international trade. They are not protection measures; they are about ensuring that Australian businesses do not have to compete unfairly with products coming into this country. They should not be used as a protective trade barrier. We have never argued that. What we have clearly and consistently argued is that businesses here competing in a global environment should not have to compete unfairly with products coming in where the costs of production do not reflect the price ultimately being charged. Legislative changes are necessary to preserve the integrity of Australia's anti-dumping system. That we acknowledge, but we believe that the primary focus of such legislation should be to create Australian jobs and build national wealth within our international trading obligations. Nothing that was recommended by Willett was contrary to our obligations under the WTO. Nothing in this bill is contrary to those obligations, nor was there anything in the bill we put into the parliament that was inconsistent with our world trade obligations. I have heard assertions from the lobby groups we have been speaking to and from the interest groups that this was the government's excuse for not adopting Labor's bill. I remind the House that, when we presented our bill, we had it cleared through the parlia mentary research facility. We specifically asked the question as to whether what we were proposing in the bill as drafted by us was consistent with our world trade obligations. The answer was yes.To ensure the primary focus was on the creation of Australian jobs, our strategy was designed to ensure that existing jobs and new opportunities were not lost through unfairly priced imports. We were concerned to repair the damage done by the government to the current anti-dumping system. We were also concerned to put in place a single stage process for anti-dumping complaints to ensure that they are completed in no more than 155 days.The Willett report itself was commissioned to cut the time taken to investigate complaints of dumping and improve procedures to ensure Australian producers are not disadvantaged. Yet, as I said before, whilst the Willett report was in the hands of the government for over a year and a half, it is only now that it has done something to put in place any of the 23 recommendations. Both sides of the House were capable of agreeing upon practically all of those recommendations.While that amount of time passed, all the government did when it came to office—it had the advantage of this report in its hand rather than these more comprehensive amendments which we are now debating—was to shave 30 days off existing investigation times without addressing any of the structural issues highlighted by Willett. We believe that the government believed it had fulfilled its obligation, its promise, of the last election by this 30-day shaving of the investigation time. That was nowhere near what Willett recommended. When the government had this report, when it had knocked 30 days off the investigation period, what was its next step? To refer it to the Productivity Commission.This is the Productivity Commission that would have sent the Australian automotive industry out the back door, and the Productivity Commission whose recommendations would have put the TCF industries out of business. The government, rather than acting on its own report—knowing that it had made a commitment to reduce the days and know ing that it had a report that said to it, `Here is the way in which you can implement your policy'—took the courageous decision to send it off to the Productivity Commission. Of course, the Productivity Commission did nothing. The truth is that, having got a report, this government referred it off to a body which did nothing.This was despite the fact that the recent economic developments in Asia, uncertainty over the government's lack of an industry policy and the mess created over the treatment of dumped product from China all combined to ensure that Australian manufacturers were more exposed to the threat of dumping than ever before. But this is not a unique experience. This form of government inaction has become a regular pattern. Let us go through it: first, you make an election promise; second, you redefine that promise as a non-core promise; third, you delay the decision by commissioning a report; fourth, when the report recommends action, you announce another inquiry to consider the recommendations of the first inquiry; fifth, you forget to send the reference to the second inquiry; sixth, you close your eyes and hope it all goes away; seventh, you went until Labor campaigns for the action that is needed; and, eighth, you follow Labor's lead and then pretend it was all your own idea. That is the pattern that has followed this issue. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I would urge you, as a person whom I know takes close interest in this issue and in particular takes a close interest in my activities, to look at that sequence of events and see if I am not right. I urge you to do that. A number of individuals and organisations have played a very significant part campaigning for their membership and for their constituencies in forcing the government to act on this bill. I should mention a few of them. In the northern part of Tasmania, an organisation called TasPEAC—the Tasmanian Papermills Employee Action Committee—through their president Royce Webster have been avid followers, active campaigners and effective advocates. They need a huge pat on the back for the contribution they have made through to pushing this government to act on the legislation and hopefully—I say hopefully because there are still other issues outstanding that the government should act upon—to be in a position in which their job security can be guaranteed.Similarly, down in the Gippsland region the A-team at the Maryvale mill, which is owned by Australian Paper, a subsidiary of Amcor—Chris Moody is the chairman of the A-team—has also had active, effective campaigning through regular meetings and has persisted in working with the management structures to try to put pressure on this government to act. Again, I congratulate them for the activities that they pursued. Senator Shayne Murphy, a Senate colleague of mine who put a lot of effort into drafting the private member's bill, also deserves mention, as does the Labor candidate for Braddon, Sid Sidebottom, in contrast to the invisible member for Braddon (Mr Miles) on this.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Never heard of him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There is a lot of people down in Braddon who have heard of him. The minister says he has never heard of him. He will, because he will be sitting in this chamber after the next election, in part because of the government's inaction on this legislation.What did we have from the member for Braddon, Mr Chris Miles? When a major effort was needed in Tasmania in light of the minister's comments when faced with the potential closure of the Burnie mills, the member for Braddon said, `The government would look at the situation in the light of events at that time.' That was the member for Braddon's contribution. Here he had mills in his electorate about to close down and all he said was that he would look at it at the appropriate time. The problem was that, as they were pointing out to him that now was the appropriate time and to do something, he sat on his hands.We also have the Labor candidate for McMillan, Mr Christian Zarah, who has campaigned with the A-team in a hugely successful way—unlike the current member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) who tried to pretend that Labor's bill was deficient.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—It is deficient.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is not deficient. I challenge you to get up in this chamber and argue where that deficiency was.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—I will.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—In any event, if that was your true belief, I sat down with you early in the piece and said, `You show us where the deficiencies are and we will correct them.' That could have been done last November when we introduced the bill into the parliament. We offered bipartisanship, and you ignored it. So do not come in here with any unction saying it was deficient. If it was deficient, identify the deficiencies and let us work it out. But do not get your member for McMillan on the airwaves asserting what was not true and in particular not being prepared to address the deficiencies himself, if he claimed they existed.We also have Sandra McCarthy who has worked in her local community—the community of Gilmore which she is contesting in the next election on our behalf. I notice that the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), who is always writing letters that we can use from time to time, is in the House at the moment and smiling. I note that she has just started to take up a petition on this issue. No wonder she is in the House to debate the bill. She will tell us about how she has been actively campaigning all the way through on this issue. We know that that is nonsense and we know that Labor's alternative choice in that seat has been active in this campaign in a very significant way.I would also like to pay tribute to Bruce McAllen's role in this exercise, which was to coordinate the industry end of the campaign. I would also mention Michael O'Connor from the CFMEU who has, as always, given strong, effective, passionate leadership on behalf of his union membership in striving to identify the issues, create the opportunities and represent them with the same dedication that he has shown on other occasions in relation to this issue.There is some unfinished business which I want to conclude on, unfinished business that the government has chosen to ignore. Since January last year, all goods allegedly dumped from China are priced as if they come from a free market economy. Does anyone in this chamber believe that China is a free market economy? Stick up your hands if you believe it. Come on, stick up your hand, Minister. Do you believe it is a free market economy? No matter how much the production and sale are government controlled, the government class it now as a free market economy. They created the problem more than a year ago when they decided to treat goods from China on a case by case basis, apparently as a trade-off for the botch-up over the DIFF scheme. Alexander Downer mucks it up, so Tim Fischer goes over and says to the Chinese, `Well, we're going to fix this up, we'll treat you as a free market economy,' without understanding the consequences. They mishandled the matter in a way that has resulted in all goods from China being considered as sourced from a free market. In the case of glyphosate, that was in the face of overwhelming evidence that export and domestic pricing of glyphosate from China was government controlled.We asked this question in the House, and the minister was talking only about export prices. But I again refer him to the letter which we have tabled in this parliament—he's laughing now because he knows he has no answer—from the Ministry of Chemical Industry of People's China, a notice about the coordination meeting for pricing of glyphosate. This is the free market at work. We all get together in a room, and we coordinate the price. It is called price fixing, Minister. That is what it is called. This letter says that the industry:. . . have decided to call a conference for coordination of Glyphosate prices. Through the event, it is hoped that through the efforts, studies on the ex-prices and export price limit will be well studied.That meeting took place on 10 October. Here we have the minute. We have the indication as to what they are discussing—fixing prices for glyphosate—and this dopey government still calls it a free market.I will tell you what happened as a result of China being treated that way in relation to glyphosate. We lost an $80 million investment by Monsanto in this country. It can go now to Argentina. It is not too late, as I am told, for this investment to be revived, but only if this government is prepared to act to reverse its stupidity. No other country in the OECD treats product from China in this way—not one, just Australia, out there leading stupidly, like the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in Thailand the other day with the glasses fogged up. Like Mr Magoo he was—the leader of the nation not knowing where he was going. And this is another example of your leading stupidly, because you get yourselves in a mess.In February 1997 the government announced it would legislate to fix this problem of its own making. Yet the legislation was not introduced into the parliament until June, and even then it was woefully inadequate. Since then, 11 months ago, nothing has happened. That bill finally passed the House of Representatives but has since been languishing on the Senate Notice Paper. The government has refused to bring it on for debate in the Senate, even though hundreds of jobs and at least one major investment—the $80 million one I talked about before—have been lost offshore. It now seems certain that the government is going to go to an election without this vital issue solved. So, whilst we welcome the bill, we will be monitoring it—and there is unfinished business. What I cannot understand is—when you have this issue of China and its status as a free market economy when it should not be, when you are talking about introducing legislation and priority in these last sitting weeks of the parliament—why this is not being pressed in the Senate. I cannot understand it, Minister, and more jobs will be lost because of your inaction. (Time expired)11:34:004088Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Gilmore, particularly those who work at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill at Bomaderry in the Shoalhaven and at the Manildra Starch Factory. I also speak on behalf of all the other producers in my electorate of Gilmore who are against unfair dumping by foreign companies. I also rise to speak for all Australians who like to buy Australian products and, in doing so, know that what they are buying is actually made here, therefore providing jobs for local people and investment for our future.As one example, the Shoalhaven Paper Mill has been lobbying for some time for tougher country of origin labelling and anti-dumping rules. I applaud the actions of the proactive Paper Action Community Team, which has been vigilant in its scrutiny of paper products entering Australia and of the monitoring of labelling. They have also been very active in promoting this issue in the wider community and in educating the public about buying Australian products in paper and all manner of goods. In fact, I urge all members and senators to ensure that their staff are instructed to buy and use only Australian made paper—preferably that from the Shoalhaven Paper Mill.It was this government which had the guts and foresight to change the unfair rules on anti-dumping that Labor maintained during its 13 years. It was this government which has further protected the Made in Australia and Product of Australia labelling to protect Australian jobs after 13 years of Labor doing nothing. Actions speak louder than words. When the Buy Australian Made campaign first began, it aimed at effectively cashing in on two underlying principles which exist in Australia: that of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and that of protecting your own. Of course we like to buy Australian Made products, but it takes just that little bit of encouragement to get over the cargo cult nature of Australia and to show us all that we can do it as well as—if not better than—the rest of the world. And we can.In my electorate of Gilmore there are a large number of exporters, many of them in family businesses which are pushing the boundaries into the world's markets—everything from surf-wear to starch, flowers and, of course, paper. Until now, it has been relatively easy to market a product as Australian Made or as a Product of Australia, with scant regard to what that really means. That is because the definitions and identifications on the labels were so loose, making it possible for something to be mostly imported, have a final touch-up in this country and be stocked on shelves as Made in Australia.Shoalhaven Paper Mill is the only Australian producer of specialty papers. Some members may remember the paper and printing industry display held here last year to promote Australian made ingenuity, innovation and creativity. particularly that of the Shoalhaven. And local manufacturers are being rewarded with major contracts for all sorts of products—from simple cardboard box designs to, for example, security-safe watermarked paper such as Shoalhaven mill does for my stationery.Australian Made and Product of Australia labels protect the jobs of Australian manufacturers and workers. Protecting the identity associated with these labels encourages an environment which allows Australian innovators, business people and their staff to research and develop new ideas, new products and new technologies in the knowledge that they will be supported not only through the substantial research and development grants offered by this government but also through product protection when it is in the marketplace.I commend the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) on these pieces of legislation which have been welcomed by the residents of the Shoalhaven, particularly those in the paper mill and in other industries which face competition from imports from overseas countries.While we are on the topic of imports, I despair at the way the Labor Party is denigrating the importance of the ship Columbus Canada, which has been blockaded by the International Transport Federation at the behest of the MUA. This ship carries very important material for export to United States markets from the Manildra starch plant at Bomaderry. There have been no words or action from my Labor opposition on that important issue—and no wonder when Labor members are being told to contribute $50 a week to threaten the jobs of workers and staff at Manildra in support of the refusal by wharfies to unload the ship.8I4MARTINMr Martin—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I was prepared to remain silent while the honourable member for Gilmore debated anti-dumping but in fact talked about another bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Could we have your point of order rather than argument.8I4MARTINMr Martin—She was talking about the wrong bill a little earlier and I was prepared to let that go. She is now talking about something which is completely different from the contents of this anti-dumping bill. I ask you to direct her to come back to the bill before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Gilmore will of course address the contents of the bill.AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASH—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The bills are interrelated. In relation to the new anti-dumping and country of origin legislation, both of which are being welcomed as a major boost for local industry, I would like to outline just what has been done. From now on, Made in Australia will mean exactly that and Product of Australia will mean it is Australian, not Indonesian, American or French with a green and gold stripe on it or a Southern Cross stuck on the package.Under this legislation, Product of Australia labelling can be used only on items with 100 per cent Australian content. In terms of anti-dumping, there will now be faster investigations of claims against unfair practices by foreign companies and quicker countervailing measures to help protect local industry and local jobs.The government has responded to the calls by industry to take action and the result is a huge improvement on the lack of security which was left as a legacy of the previous government's inaction on these matters.11:40:004090Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—We are in fact debating anti-dumping laws in this parliament this morning, that is, the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill 1998 . In her efforts a moment ago, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) mentioned anti-dumping two or three times and no more and gave scant regard to one of the major examples of anti-dumping that effects her own electorate—the Shoalhaven Paper Mill.As I also represent the Illawarra region, it does not surprise me that she could only find a couple of seconds to talk about the Shoalhaven Paper Mill because she has virtually been silent in her own community about this, in stark contrast to the efforts of Sandra McCarthy—the ALP's candidate for the forthcoming election. Sandra McCarthy has met with PACT, the Papermill Action Community Team, as have I. Sandra McCarthy has been throughout the community with a petition—which, coincidentally, was tabled with 1,034 signatures on it in this parliament on Monday of this week.What have we seen from the member for Gilmore with respect to this? Some throwaway lines about the fact that the paper mill was subject to anti-dumping complaints—having made them themselves because of the importation of cheap Indonesian paper. It is Sandra McCarthy who has been on the ground working with PACT and the local community in the Nowra-Bombaderry area and working with the AMWU and other union representatives to try to get a just outcome from the owners of the organisation—being Amcor—and to try to get this government to do something to protect jobs. Not only do 350 people work at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill but also, according to the statistics which are put out by the mill itself in this very attractive brochure on the mill's operation and the significance of it, some 2,000 other residents are dependent on this mill through the flow-on effect. The mill represents 15 per cent of employment of the Shoalhaven and 25 per cent of employment in Nowra-Bombaderry. No wonder it is such an important issue for people in the Shoalhaven region.The members of the Papermill Action Community Team, regrettably, have found that their efforts have been thwarted because the government is not taking much notice of them. They have continued to work away to ensure that their livelihood is sustained, a livelihood that is being threatened by the importation of cheap Indonesian paper which this government has done nothing about.AK6GASHMrs Gash—Where were you for 13 years?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—It is all well and good for the member for Gilmore to say `13 years' and all the rest of it. I say to the member for Gilmore that she has now been a government member for two and a bit years in this place. She purports to represent the people of the Shoalhaven and particularly the people who work at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill, but where has been the movement by any one of the number of Customs ministers we have seen come and go through this place in the last two years? I can understand she has a problem. One day she goes through the door of the minister for customs, but suddenly the next day he has gone, he has been replaced by somebody else. We are on about our third or fourth minister in two years. So it is no wonder they have not quite got a grip on this particular issue.When I went down and talked to the people on site at the paper mill in March this year in the company of Sandra McCarthy and talked genuinely to them about their concerns, they were these: first and foremost, the importation and the dumping of cheap Indonesian paper, because this is a mill that makes specialty paper. This is a mill that has a fabulous recycling plant there as well. As a consequence of inaction by this government, the current $1,310 per tonne floor price is in danger of being slashed in half to around $700 if in fact this cheap paper is allowed to be imported. Quite obviously, Australian producers cannot compete in that environment. It stands to reason.What have we seen from the member for Gilmore? Has she been to see any of the ministers involved—the ministers with responsibility for consumer affairs or customs—and argued this point with them? Has she said to them that people in the Shoalhaven are concerned that there was action taken in 1994; that in 1997, Indonesia was found to be dumping some of this copy paper; that they applied to the ADA to have the undertakings revoked; and that the company is appealing that decision? What has she done to assist the company in appealing that decision for the 350 employees who are there? What have we heard from her in this place about it?By contrast, the ALP candidate for Gilmore, Sandra McCarthy, the Deputy Mayor of Kiama Council, has been active in the community and has been utilising the media to try to generate some interest in this issue. She has achieved something which is not an easy thing to do; I have been trying to do it for a while and I am not sure that I have actually cracked it in the two years that I have been in opposition. She has actually been mentioned in the Business Review Weekly as being a champion of the Shoalhaven Paper Mill against the dumping procedures of Indonesia and fighting for the cause of anti-dumping. I am referring to Sandra McCarthy, the ALP candidate for Gilmore. Not the member for Gilmore; she could not crack it and be commended for actually being out there in support.Mr Barresi interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Deakin will remain silent.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—The member for Deakin might yell, scream, stamp his little foot and all the rest of it. He cannot hide the fact that the member for Gilmore has been absolutely useless and inactive in trying to protect the interests of her constituents in this matter.As I said, the member for Gilmore does not leave it there. `Too little, too late' is her motto in the local area. Most people know that this is the case—too little, too late.She comes in after the event, tries to generate a bit of interest and claim all the credit for it. But Sandra McCarthy has not done that. She has been doing an enormous amount of work to bring this issue to the attention of the national media, and to the attention of the national parliament through the tabling of a petition, which we were pleased to present on her behalf this week. Sandra McCarthy has been out there involving me, as the shadow minister for small business and customs. She has brought the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) to the local electorate in his capacity as the shadow minister for employment and training.Obviously, why wouldn't we take an interest in the issue? It goes back, as my colleague the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) said, to Wollongong, where the Labor Party and the Labor shadow ministry released a press release under the heading, `Labor to strengthen anti-dumping laws'. That let the government know that we were prepared to put some legislation in place to pick up these issues.Once again, Labor did it for the government. There was the bill. There was the response to Lawrie Willett's report. There was a piece of legislation that Simon Crean was able to bring in, and it just lay there because the government was not ever prepared to pick up what the Labor Party might have been suggesting. It is just a nonsense.When it comes back to that approach that the government has taken, one cannot get away from the way in which the current member for Gilmore has been doing the job. Look at all these headlines, Mr Deputy Speaker, in terms of what she has been able to achieve. `Howard fails jobs pledge' says the Milton Ulladulla Times. `Promise not worth it' says the ShoalhavenIndependent. Another headline reads, `Mill jobs petition'. And all the articles mention Sandra McCarthy. I look at these and I ask: where is Joanna Gash's name mentioned as being out there fighting for her constituents?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Where indeed?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Where indeed, as my colleague the member for Throsby says, because he knows the work that Sandra has been doing. `Mill jobs petition'- there it is again. `More of our local jobs get the chop'—there is a great headline. That is because of what this government is doing to them. Another one reads, `More to go at mill'. If ever there was a headline over which the member for Gilmore should hang her head in shame, it is a headline like that—`More to go at mill'. The article states:It looks as though the Minister for Federal Customs and Consumer Affairs message of relief over Indonesian dumping of paper products has come too late to save the jobs of Shoalhaven Paper Mill workers.What an indictment of this government, what an indictment of this last in a long line of ministers for customs, and what an indictment of Joanna Gash. What does she offer the people down there? Very little. What about this article headed, `Community support for mill'? Who is in the middle of the photograph? Sandra McCarthy. She is gathering names on petitions, she is out in the community, talking to them and saying, `Save the Shoalhaven mill'. We see as well the state Labor government taking an active role in this matter.As was indicated a little earlier, we do not oppose the basic thrust of what is contained in this legislation. We wouldn't, would we? At the end of the day, it was a Labor bill.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—It's ours.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—It is our bill. We wouldn't go and oppose it. What the member for Hotham has indicated is that there are some issues that we would like the government to review. There are some matters that we would like to think can be tackled sensibly and at least this legislation could be got through quickly. Where has it been? The government sat on the Willett report for 18 months. Where has the legislation been? Why were they frightened to bring it into the place? I suppose they were frightened because the member for Gilmore was not out there saying to the government, `You've got to do something about the Shoalhaven Paper Mill. It's in my electorate. It only employs 25 per cent of my constituents in Nowra and Bomaderry. But don't worry about that, we'll just let it roll along.'This legislation needs to be passed quickly. It needs to be given the consideration by this place that it deserves. The sad history of this matter is that in 1996 the coalition promised, once again, with hands on their hearts, `We will shorten the maximum time allowed for anti-dumping from 245 days to 155 days.' It was probably a non-core promise, or it might have been one of those promises that the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) described on the ABC news last night in respect of a GST—that it only lasts for one election period. Maybe it is one of those sorts of promises.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Not `never ever'!8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—A `never ever' promise, Mr Deputy Speaker.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—It's better than a `l-a-w, law' promise.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Order! The honourable member for Deakin will remain silent, and so will other members.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—He is more to be pitied than rebuked, Mr Deputy Speaker. The simple fact is that over time what we have seen is a promise which we now know is non-core. We saw a report in June 1996 after the change of government. Here they were, hands on hearts, saying, `We'll look after anti-dumping. We'll keep those Indonesians out of the paper mills. We will protect jobs in the Shoalhaven.'ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—So we will.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—`So we will.' When are you going to do it? When are you going to get around to doing it?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—Tell them about the DuPont factory closing in my electorate, and you guys did it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Deakin will allow the honourable member for Cunningham to continue his remarks in silence. I also ask the honourable member for Cunningham to direct his remarks through the chair.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As I was saying before I was interrupted, in June 1996 the report was tabled. It made recommendations; it was not just a throwaway report. It was not something the government could turn its back on. It was a substantial report on anti-dumping measures. We found, 18 months later, that there had been no action. On 24 November 1997, Labor took the lead role and suggested how this might be approached and introduced into the parliament some private members' bills which we find now are reflected in the government's legislation. Here it is, the end of May 1998, and we are finally getting around to debating what most of us would recognise as one of the most significant issues in Australia: the fight against anti-dumping measures.How many times in the last 13 years have I been in this place and heard people talk about the need to protect Australia's produc ers from anti-dumping? My very good friend the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) sits over there nodding in agreement. I have listened to his complaints in this place about the importation of orange juice. He has been religious in his fervour when putting the views of his constituents about that issue—and courageously so. But, once again, why did it take so long to get here? Why is it that when we make suggestions to members on the government side about this, when we say to them, `Look, here it is. Here's the bill. We put it up to you last year. Here's what you could do. Why don't you put it in place?' it takes another six or seven months before it even gets in here?The inaction of this government has been matched only by the inaction of the member for Gilmore in the way in which she has not represented her constituents at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill. The inaction of this government is only matched by the inability of the member for Gilmore—XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I gather we are talking about the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 , yet the member for Cunningham seems to be fixated by the member for Gilmore. I ask him to address the subject, or he might like to talk about the member for Macquarie, particularly in relation to tourism there, which he has not been very supportive of.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Come in at half past five, and you can hear me on that too, brother.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Quarrelling is not allowed.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—I am not his brother, and I think he should retract it.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Thank the Lord. Let me conclude. The honourable member for Gilmore professes to have great beliefs in anti-dumping laws and the necessity for those laws to protect her constituents in the Shoalhaven area, yet her inaction is legion. She is noted for her inability to push even the simplest issue on behalf of her constituents. This legislation needs to get through now and it needs to get through quickly to protect those people in the Shoalhaven. It needs to get through because these people in the Shoalhaven area deserve support. They deserve a better government.11:56:004094Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I would like to enter into this debate on the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 because forest industries are very important to Tasmania, and they have been for a very long time, with a substantial number of people—probably one in every six or seven people—associated with or involved in the forest industries. There are two major mills in the north of the state: the Wesley Vale mill is in the electorate of the member for Lyons (Mr Adams), who I notice is here today, and the other is in Burnie, which is in the electorate I represent.There has been very active representation from both these mills on this issue. I must say that it has been a pleasure to work with people in the TasPEAC organisation who have worked very hard to make sure that everything could be done. I am, though, absolutely puzzled by some of the lines of attack which have come from the opposition on this particular issue. I notice they have put out a press release saying that we have had 622 days to bring this legislation into fruition. I want to say to the opposition that they were there for 4,745 days and they did not do this. I can remember being on backbench committees for over eight years and talking about this issue. We went to the last election saying that we would shorten the period from 250 days down to 155 days. That is what we are doing today; we are delivering on our promise. We went to the election saying that we would do something about it. The previous government was in government, I repeat, for 4,745 days and they did nothing about this particular issue even though, for at least six years prior to 1996, there were people in Australia requesting that we look at this as a country and do something about shortening the period for the anti-dumping cases which might come before Australia.The previous government were aware of this issue, so for them to come in here today and say that they are speaking in the interests of the workers of Australia really is the height of hypocrisy. We as a government are doing something about it. We have brought this legislation in here today, and we want to see it go through expeditiously. I am sure it will go through quickly in this House and I am very hopeful that it will also do so in the Senate. But that, of course, depends on the attitudes of the senators in the other chamber—those from the Labor Party, the Independents and the Democrats—as to whether we can get this legislation through in a sensible manner, get if off the agenda and get it into place. I think the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the members want to achieve that. I hope that that can be achieved also in the Senate.Given the opportunity, there are countries around the world that will dump products into our markets; there is no doubt about that. We have seen that happen in a number of instances with the paper industry in Australia. Over the last two years, the Commonwealth government has had an opportunity to do something about this. I commend the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) for the work he has done in this area and for the decisions which have been made; he has had to exercise judgment in talking with the industry and the employees. The Wesley Vale and Burnie pulp mills are very supportive of this legislation and of the measures which the coalition government has taken.My concern in all of this is that families and workers out there who are working very hard and being productive in this industry are given the protection they deserve. In other words, other countries around the world are not allowed to just dump products here which are below the price of production in their countries. We as a government are standing rock solid behind that with this legislation. We are also making sure that the time it takes to bring this legislation in is shorter—by almost 100 days. That is a major step forward in the anti-dumping area.The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) said that certain people have sat on their hands on this issue. I say to the Labor Party, Tasmania and the environmental movement in regard to pulp and the pulp mill workers that it would have been most acceptable in Tasmania to have a world-class, modern, up-to-date and efficient pulp mill built at Wesley Vale. The political liaison between the then Senator Richardson and the leader of the Greens in Tasmania was fundamental to skittling the opportunity to have a world-class mill established in Tasmania.We probably would not be debating as vigorously the issue of the paper industry in northern Tasmania if that mill had been established. Unfortunately, it has not been established and the window of opportunity for a highly productive mill in Tasmania has been missed. I hope that can be resurrected at some stage, that the window of opportunity will come again.It is a great tragedy for the families and workers who have worked hard to be productive in this industry with the gear and equipment they have that that world-class mill went by the board—a $1.2 billion project. It was due to the antics of former Senator Richardson and the Greens. I do not think anybody can overestimate the cost of the environmental debate to Tasmania, which was brought into Tasmania by the radical Green movement. It is one of the reasons why, economically, Tasmania has not performed so well over the last decade and why unemployment is marginally higher than in other parts of Australia.This issue is very important to many families on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I have no doubt that they are delighted that this legislation is coming in. They are constantly in touch. In particular, I would like to congratulate Peter Spinks and Royce Webster for the work of their committee on TasPEAC. They have worked extremely hard on this issue for the workers. I hope that in the future companies and the community—everybody—will stand by them in their efforts to make this industry productive and effective. Tasmania should have the opportunity to have a world-class industry in paper and pulp; there is no doubt about that.Finally, it has been disappointing that, even though the members of the AMWU have really worked hard on this issue, one of the unions, the CFMEU, has been very lukewarm in fighting this issue. It has not been as aggressive as the AMWU in fighting for its workers. A tremendous amount of work has been done by TasPEAC, and I congratulate them for that. I am sure that everybody in northern Tasmania will be delighted when this legislation goes through. I commend the bill to the House.12:04:004095Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has put the loss of the pulp mill in northern Tasmania, at Wesley Vale or other sites, down to former Senator Richardson and the Green movement. The Green movement played a role in putting bars on the table, like the closing of the loop on how to get rid of the effluent from the mill, which was not possible at the time in either engineering or science terms.The real sinker of that mill was the vote in the Senate, where the Liberal senators voted against resource legislation. That came about because of disagreement within the forest industries. That was the decision which actually sank that mill. The member for Braddon had better look at a bit of history to find out exactly what occurred to sink that mill.When I spoke on the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 before, I was concerned about the time this had taken—and still am—especially with the recommendations of the Willett anti-dumping report. We are nearly into June, almost a year after the legislation was first brought into parliament, and we have still had no action—until now. The honourable member for Braddon said that this had been an issue for years. Anti-dumping in the paper industry was not an issue that ever came before me in the last parliament. I have never received any letters or had representations on it at all and I have been involved in many forestry issues and in many debates within my state supporting forest based industries. This is an issue that came forward and needed to be dealt with by this parliament.The debate started in 1996 when the Willett report was submitted to government in September, with its four major recommendations. Nothing happened. That is the truth of the matter. The government received the report with its recommendations and it sat on it. The Labor Party put a private member's bill into the parliament with the recommendations in it in an endeavour to move the government along a bit, and it was only then that we were able to reach the conclusion where we now have this response, which is very close to Labor's private member's bill.Despite those delays, it is still important for us to get this legislation passed and onto the books—in fact, it is really becoming very critical because the paper mills in Burnie and Wesley Vale have been under serious threat during the past year through the dumping of wood-free coated paper sheets. Many jobs have already been lost as a result of this unfair trading practice. These jobs may well have been saved if our anti-dumping laws had been reformed before now and many Tasmanian families would not have had to lose their breadwinners and sacrificed so much.This is ongoing. We must put this bill into practice without delay. The major amendments proposed provide for a tightening up of the time scales and of the way in which investigations are treated and creates a new body, the Trade Measures Review Office. It also removes provisions allowing Australia to take retaliatory countervailing action against another country. It is claimed that this provision in the act is contrary to WTO obligations.It is not just the coated paper question that worries me about this and raises my curiosity about this bill. I believe that other products are being similarly affected in Australia today. The latest that has come to my notice is the pork industry. I am sure that many members in the House have been hearing from pork producers. I believe that subsidised pork is being dumped in Australia and is causing farmers here to go out of business. In my own electorate, there are people who are going out of business because of the price they are being offered for pork.Australia is very open to dumping because we have lowered our tariffs and dropped our bounties on a wide range of goods, and yet we are still allowing subsidised imports from other countries. This is having a terrible impact on Australian pig farmers. Some figures were given to me the other day: it is estimated that pig farmers throughout Australia are losing $3.5 million per week. Because of the 5.5 times flow-on effect to other rural enterprises, this means that over $19 million is being bled from rural and regional Australia every week. While the market problems are not entirely caused by subsidised imports, these have had a disproportionate effect compared with the actual volume. If there had not been open slather imports from September 1996 to December 1997, then the current crisis would not have occurred.Dumping is being allowed in the interests of so-called free trade. This does not make sense when it is sacrificing a good and keen market. The last official ABARE figures show a gross farm gate value of $589 million for the 1995-96 financial year. This sort of damage is not to be tolerated and we could well come up with other anti-dumping rules to protect this industry.I have seen figures which show that Canadian pork is landed in this country at between 50c and 80c per kilogram under the Australian production cost. Canada admits that subsidies of some 15 per cent are still in place as compared with Australia's nil subsidy situation. The labelling laws do not allow the consumer to properly identify the 100 per cent Australian product, so people cannot see whether they are buying an Australian product or one from somewhere else. There is a need to implement effective country of origin labelling laws, with adjustment measures for pork producers. That needs to be brought into the parliament as quickly as possible.Many would prefer to buy local pork if they could and if they could tell the difference between Canadian pork and Australian pork. There needs to be a good way of telling the difference for the consumer. So labelling needs to be addressed and not talked about, as the government continues to do. We should be getting it into the parliament as soon as possible. There is a motion on the books in the Senate to investigate whether the level of imports has been the primary cause of the pig industry's problems and, if so, whether we take action under the World Trade Organisation provisions.It is important that these amendments be put in place without delay. Under the WTO provisions for emergency protection of an industry, the agreement on safeguards section of the Uruguay Round agreement on GATT provides that:A member may apply a safeguard measure to a product only if that Member has determined pursuant to certain provisions that such a product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products.I believe that that is occurring. I believe that there is sufficient evidence flowing from the industry that there is a case under the WTO, but we need to clean up our act first and put the wording right in our own customs legislation to make sure that we are not disadvantaged.There are also 12,000 Australian people who are directly employed throughout regional Australia and many more indirectly employed whom we have to think about. It is interesting that, while we bend over backwards to open our doors to trade and try our best to roll a good level playing field, there is always someone out there waiting to take advantage of us. I am sure that we are not totally squeaky clean either and our companies will look at as many loopholes as they can find in other countries' trade laws to see where they can make a break as well. This is, after all, what we call competition. But, while companies fight out their market shares, the producers on the bottom are fighting to survive. Most are not party to this endgame, and they see their hard-earned living flowing out of their pockets and into those of another country.Those in government have to walk the tightrope of being fair to export companies and their suppliers, many of whom these days come from different parts of the world. However, I still believe a country has a right to favour its own producers because they are their economic base. There are some differences with the bill, as the opposition's amendments attest.I am concerned, for instance, that the new Trade Measures Review Office will become a de facto anti-dumping authority. I am also concerned as to whether the assurances on more stringent conditions applying to seeking and verifying information will be carried through—very important issues in this paper debate. Getting the information and the time lines on those things are very important. These two issues have not been adequately addressed through the amendments, but we cannot wait any longer. So I support the quick passage of this bill. I will certainly be keeping an eye on it—how it is implemented and how it applies to the industries that are so vitally important to my area.12:17:004097Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—It is with great pleasure that I support the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998 . I, like one of the previous speakers, note that we have been in government now for 622 days. We are bringing in these anti-dumping bills today to be sped through the parliament, and the next bill to be discussed is the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . That will also be put through the parliament today. The previous government had 4,745 days to do something but delivered nothing. So I believe the ministers responsible are to be congratulated.The definition of `anti-dumping' probably should be discussed up-front. If a product from overseas is sold in this country at a lower price than it is sold on the domestic market in its country of origin, that, in simple terms, is what dumping is all about. It is not when a product is sold cheaper here than the local product; it is only if it is sold cheaper here than in its domestic market.Some may ask why you would possibly object to someone wanting to sell you something cheap. Surely logic tells you that most objections will be against someone who wants to rip you off and sell you a product at a higher price than the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. That is a fair question. We have to keep that in perspective. There is no law in this country against someone from overseas selling a product at an unconscionably high price, but we are debating today—some may say, strangely enough—someone wanting to sell us a product for a cheap price, below the cost of production.Why do we want to have laws against someone wanting to sell their product here for a low price because surely that benefits our consumers and, in some cases, benefits industry? We have tariffs, for example, against cars coming into this country, and not so long ago I think it added $5,000 to the cost of a car. We have tariffs against chemicals coming into the country, and that, for example, disadvantages farmers who have to pay a price higher than they otherwise would. We have that inherent sort of contradiction because, domestically, we have laws against people who want to sell products and make excessive profits on them. We try to encourage competition in that way.We want businesses not only in our own country but also around the world to compete on an equal footing. We do not want an overseas country dumping a product in Australia, wiping out the industry in this country and then perhaps coming back at a later time and charging a higher price. When a business is set up, a lot of investment, heartache and expertise go into it. People often take jobs in that industry. They commit their lifestyles to it. If they are being wiped out for ridiculous reasons, it is something that we should think about getting rid of, and that is what this legislation is about.Australian businesses, of course, still have to compete against not only other producers producing the same or alternative products in their own country but also overseas producers. If the overseas producers can put the product into this country on an equal footing but cheaper, so be it. That is what competition is all about, both domestically and internationally. Here we are talking about products that are dumped in this country, destroying legitimate producers.One or two previous speakers have mentioned the pork industry. I have a number of pork producers in my electorate, and they are going through a terrible time at this stage. It is costing them around $1.90 to $2 a kilogram to produce, and they are getting something between $1.30 and $1.70 for their product. If they are selling sows going out of production, they are getting only about 50c or so. They are suffering terrible losses in some cases. Some are suffering losses of up to $2,500 to $3,000 a week staying in business.It is interesting to go through some of the reasons why the pork producers are making a loss at the moment. Part of that reason, no doubt, is that there is pork coming in from Canada and there is talk of it coming in from Denmark and possibly other countries in the future. The volume of pork coming into this country from Canada has risen to about five per cent of the market, but the last figures I saw show that the volume of pork in the high value area—that is, the leg hams—is now 27.4 per cent of the market. It is not so much the volume coming in but the overhang on the market and the uncertainty that it is creating that is helping force prices down.There are other factors, too. One of the main factors is the high cost of production these days. Grain prices have been relatively high, at least until recent times, and alternative meats which consumers can switch to, such as beef, have been very depressed. As a beef producer myself, I am acutely aware of this. With recent rains, particularly in eastern Australia, there has been somewhat of an upturn in beef prices and it is to be hoped that pork prices will also increase.I do note that we have had a significant fall in the exchange rate in recent weeks, particularly over the last couple of weeks, which was mainly due to the Indonesian situation. That will help the pork producers too by forcing the cost of the imported product up. It will also help our exports.I compliment the government and the pork industry for the efforts that have been made in recent times to get export markets in pork. That has not been done until relatively recently. The July to February figures show that we are now exporting up to 50 per cent more pork in volume and value than we are importing into this country, and that is a market which is obviously going to grow.We have had a lot of debate in this country over the last five to 10 years about the dumping of citrus product into Australia, mainly in the frozen concentrate area. But because of efforts that have been made to export citrus from this country under the new World Trade Organisation rules, our exports of citrus last year were $175 million and our imports of citrus were only a little more than $50 million. In other words, we are exporting 3½ times more than we are importing. If we had paid heed to the calls to shut down the imports of citrus into this country, the consequences—under world trading rules and action that would have been taken against us—would have meant that we would have lost all of our exports, and surely we would not want to see that happen, particularly as citrus is starting to take off.While the pork industry may be five to 10 years behind the citrus industry in terms of developing export markets, already we are exporting more pork than we are importing, and I believe the future in that regard is reasonably bright. But the question is what we can do with the dreadful situation that the pork producers will face in the year or two or more that it is going to take to develop those industries more. That is where we have to exercise our minds on how we can help them.One other area is improving the situation on our waterfront and reducing the costs there. I was alarmed to read in the paper this morning about the Columbus Canada, which has been black-banned from unloading in Los Angeles. It is now sailing back to New Zealand so the cargo can be unloaded by both union and non-union labour, ironically, and put on another ship to be taken back to America. That ship has on it a container of lamb and, if the media reports are correct, the expiry date on that lamb has now passed. I do think that is an absolute tragedy. It is almost high treason what has happened in that regard.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—They were warned of the consequences. MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—There is an interjection that, `They were warned of the consequences'—as if that justifies the action.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Of course it does.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—He says, `Of course it does.' What an incredible attitude from the opposition.There is a little town near my electorate called Manildra which mills wheat. It has fought for years to overcome the European anti-dumping action of wheat gluten into America. That has involved people from the American President down and at last the Manildra Group has won access of wheat gluten into America and I congratulate them on their efforts. Today they hold 50 per cent of the American market of wheat gluten, despite America's wheat production, because we have been able to argue the case to stop dumping from the European producers and manufacturers.But what has happened? We have 36 containers on the Columbus Canada which could not be off-loaded in Los Angeles, and those 36 containers are sailing back to New Zealand too to be off-loaded by union and non-union labour and put on another ship to go back to America. What absolute madness it is in this country today that we are so dictated to by these irrational trade unionists. It is just killing production in this country and thwarting people who are trying to do the right thing, trying to earn export income for Australia and trying to get rid of these stupid trade barriers. Yet we have our own people stepping in and having ships banned.With those words, I congratulate the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), who has just sat down at the table, for the work he has done in this area in bringing forward good and workable legislation to the parliament. I sympathise greatly with the dire situation that the pork producers are going through at this stage, and it is to be hoped that we can help them in every way we can. I commend the legislation to the House.12:29:004099Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to speak on this anti-dumping legislation. The member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) made much in her speech about the anti- dumping measures announced by the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) in Nowra recently. What the member for Gilmore has not explained to this House is why it took this government so long to implement these measures, why it took months and months of pressure from Labor, two private members' bills and an Asian economic crisis to finally move this slow-moving government to repair some of the damage caused by its neglect of the anti-dumping legislation.This government has in fact picked up Labor policy. Of course, the Shoalhaven Paper Mill at Bomaderry was under considerable pressure because of the dumping of cheap paper on the Australian market. The member for Gilmore, who made much in her election campaign two years ago about not seeing jobs go from the Shoalhaven and about how she was not going to stand for unemployment, was prepared to see jobs being lost at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill because of the inaction of this government.As my friend and colleague the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) said, contrast this with the action of the ALP endorsed candidate, Sandra McCarthy, in that seat. Here I have over 40 press releases and statements by Sandra McCarthy, the endorsed ALP member, on the work that she has been doing in that area with the paper mill action team. She has been petitioning local residents, working with key personnel in that area and working with the community to make sure jobs at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill are saved.Labor has constantly pushed for protection of Shoalhaven jobs. Nevertheless, we welcome—regardless of how blatant it is—the government falling in behind Labor on industry policy. But we deplore the fact that it has taken almost 18 months to get this far.The point is that the Willett review has been in the hands of the government since September 1996. They sat on it. They did absolutely nothing while jobs were being lost offshore. Many new investments went begging while the government sat on this report. We have always said that we will put into place the key recommendations of the report.As part of the 1996 election, the coalition promised to shorten the maximum time allowed for an anti-dumping complaint from 245 to 155 days. The report was commissioned in June 1996 to recommend means of achieving this end. The report was submitted to the government in September 1996, and there were lots of recommendations in it. On 24 February 1998, the government announced its response to the report.The government position very closely matched that announced by Labor three months earlier. Three months earlier, Labor called on the government to urgently introduce its own legislation to implement the decision. Subject to the detail matching the promise, we gave a commitment to ensure rapid passage of the bill—and we will do that. We are not, as the minister at the table knows, opposing this bill.The bill does appear to meet the spirit of the Willett recommendations while modifying the approach in some cases. Its main provisions include the abolition of the Anti-Dumping Authority to transfer to Customs the responsibility for the conduct of investigations—and one does not argue with that; provisional measures available after 60 days of an investigation; a 155-day total investigation timetable, including a statement of essential facts to be issued after 110 days, 20 days for parties to respond to this, and then 25 days for Customs to complete their investigations and make their recommendations to the minister; investigators to have the power to disregard late submissions; and the creation of a new body, the Office of the Trade Measures Review Officer, to review a dumping decision where parties feel the decision is flawed. This review will take 60 days but will not reopen the case, as occurs now with the ADA.In the main, as I and other speakers have said, Labor supports this legislation. As the shadow minister has said, we want to know if the Trade Measures Review Office will become a de facto anti-dumping authority, and if the assurances of more strengthened conditions applying to seeking and verifying information will be carried through.Labor wants to strengthen anti-dumping measures. Why should the workers at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill have to compete unfairly with imports, especially imports of cheap Indonesian paper? Imports at cost do not reflect the cost of production. We in Labor will fight to protect jobs at the paper mill, as indeed our candidate, Sandra McCarthy, has been doing for the last months. She has been out there pounding the streets of Bomaderry with the petition, getting people to sign it, fighting tooth and nail to save jobs in the Shoalhaven. We are also concerned to save jobs in the other regions of Australia.Because of the inaction of this government and because of the delay, we have still got problems at the Shoalhaven Paper Mill. The plant is to shut down again on 11 June because of the backlog of dumped paper that they cannot sell. There have been 622 days of inaction by the government and by the federal member for Gilmore. On 11 June, 400 workers will be suspended from their jobs. This government could not be bothered to introduce the necessary legislation.Two thousand people in the Shoalhaven signed the petition put about by the ALP candidate, Sandra McCarthy. This petition has been tabled in the parliament and, I might say—and the honourable member for Cunningham will agree with me—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Absolutely. How many are there?DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Two thousand people signed this. And there are more to come. That petition is still going the rounds. People are wanting to sign it because they are concerned.But now the member for Gilmore, following the Labor campaign—just now, believe it or not—has her own petition. But, instead of going out into the streets, the member for Gilmore has asked people to come into her electorate office to sign it. Contrast that with what the ALP candidate is doing. She is going out and getting the signatures of people in the street. What a successful petition that will be!The priority of the government to sell Telstra meant the legislation was introduced within a fortnight. The $250 million taxpayer slush fund to pay out the sacked MUA workers, which the member for Gilmore supported, was introduced to the parliament in a matter of hours. But, for 622 days, since September 1996, this government has refused to act.I am winding up now but I will divert for one moment, because of what the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said about the ship Columbus Canada. He introduced this into the debate so I am not straying; I am just responding to a comment he made.What we have to understand is that people are concerned about ships that have been denied permission to dock. But the point I make is this: when that ship was being loaded those loading it were warned of the consequences. Regrettable as it is, they chose to disregard the consequences of what was going to happen. Before that ship was loaded, those exporters were warned that if they loaded that ship it would not be docked. They chose to disregard that. Quite frankly, they have little to complain about. That is all I am going to say about that matter.We are concerned to protect jobs in Australia, especially regional jobs, and they are at stake in the federal electorate of Gilmore. We know that our candidate is out there fighting to save jobs. When she becomes the member for Gilmore she will continue to do the excellent job that she has started to do as a candidate—fighting to save jobs, fighting against this dumping of Indonesian paper which is taking jobs away from the workers of Bomaderry and the Shoalhaven. May she have the strength to continue that campaign. I am sure she will. The opposition welcomes this legislation.12:39:004101Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—There are several salient points in the proposed customs legislation that attract my attention. The Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 is the more substantial of the two bills being debated cognately. It is to that bill that I propose to direct my comments. However, before examining the main bill in detail, it is useful to consider a little of the background to the anti-dumping process and procedures in Australia.Goods are dumped when they are exported from one country to another at prices less than their normal value. Australia can take anti-dumping action when, as a result of dumping, material injury has been or is being caused to an Australian industry, firm or business producing similar goods, or when the establishment of an industry producing such goods has been, or may be, materially hindered. Australia's anti-dumping laws are the product of our obligations under the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, now in the embrace of the World Trade Organisation; the anti-dumping code; and the code on subsidies and countervailing duties. The Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 are the principal legislative instruments.Under the current system, where an Australian firm or business lodges an application claiming dumping with the Anti-Dumping Authority, the ADA, which administers the anti-dumping system, the ADA must first determine whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate an investigation. Within the statutory period allowed for consideration of a claim, the ADA considers several matters, including the adequacy of the price evidence produced and whether there is a causal link between the alleged dumping and injury to an Australian firm. Countervailing duties are duties imposed by the Australian government on imports to offset foreign government subsidies to producers or exporters in the exporting country.In November 1997, the House debated the second reading of two cognate bills on the same subject—the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997. The substantive legislative change proposed in those earlier bills concerned the treatment for the purpose of assessing dumping allegations of so-called `economies in transition'. During that debate, I drew to the attention of the House the criticism made by the industry anti-dumping task force of the government's proposals for dealing with allegations against imports from economies in transition. I also reminded the House of the government's March 1996 election commitment to the procedure for investigating dumping allegations.On 27 November 1997, in my speech during the debate on those two earlier bills, I also drew the attention of the House to the promise made by the government in its election policy `Reviving the Heartland' about the administrative processes for dealing with dumping complaints. In the section of that policy headed `Fair Trade', the now government promised, amongst other things, to reduce the inquiry period for anti-dumping cases so that the preliminary complaints screening takes a maximum of five working days; the preliminary investigation takes up to 60 days, with an extension in special circumstances; and the interim measures then imposed, pending the completion of a final investigation within 90 days. If observed, that would ensure that the maximum total investigation period is 155 days in other than exceptional circumstances, compared with the then 245 to 265 days.As I also noted in that earlier debate, on 13 December 1996 the then minister responsible for customs, the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser), announced that the government would shorten the investigation time frame not to 155 days, as promised, but to 215 days. The then minister went on to say that the government had decided to refer Australia's anti-dumping arrangements to the Productivity Commission for report in 1997 and that the government would not move for the full reduction of the investigation process until after the commission reported.At the time of the debate on those earlier two bills, in November 1997, the matter had not been formally referred to the Productivity Commission because the terms of reference had still not been settled. The length of time taken to make a finding on an anti-dumping complaint is clearly of concern to Australian businesses, and excessive delay in investigating a dumping case will inevitably damage Australian interests. At that point in my speech, I expressly urged the government to act on its election promise. I am pleased then to see that the principal purpose of the main bill before the House today is to cut the time frame for anti-dumping investigations to the promised 155 days.Mr Bruce McAllen, the chairman of the industry dumping task force to which I referred earlier, is reported as saying that this bill delivers exactly what industry wants and that industry's only concern was how long it would take for the legislation to be enacted. The explanatory memorandum states that the principal purpose of the main bill is to give effect to the government's response to the review of Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing administration prepared by Mr Lawrie Willett AO, the report now known as the Willett report.Significant recommendations of the Willett report included amending the legislation to allow the imposition of interim duties after 60 days of an investigation has elapsed if there is sufficient information to warrant such action. The Willett report recommended abolishing the ADA and giving Customs responsibility for the entire period of investigation. Furthermore, the report recommended a model that would allow the government, in line with its stated policy, to cut the inquiry period to 155 days.The main bill provides for the ADA to be abolished and for the Customs Service to take on the responsibility for the conduct of dumping investigations. In a procedure similar to that recommended by Willett, the government will implement its policy of reducing that investigation period to 155 days. As with the Willett proposal, provisional countervailing duties could be imposed on imports from the 60th day of an investigation.A new element proposed by the government in the main bill we are discussing is the creation of a public office of Trade Measures Review Officer, or TMRO, who will be charged with reviewing whether dumping action should be taken in a particular circumstance. I understand from what the minister has had to say that the TMRO would not have the power to reinvestigate the dumping allegations but rather its function would be limited to considering an appeal based on the arguments raised in the existing investigation. The reason we have been given for this is to ensure that dumping inquiries are resolved as quickly as possible and to provide certainty in the marketplace. I welcome the government's implementation of its election commitment, however belated that implementation. While I do not advocate special protection for our own industries, it is important and only right that they are treated fairly if they are to compete in international and domestic markets. The only other observation I would make is that the main bill will add new sections such as 269ZDB and 269ZZQ to the Customs Act 1901. That numbering of these new sections sounds dangerously like something we get from our old friends in the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Act. I hope the minister will be at pains to ensure that the Customs Act is not left in the same unwieldy mess as the Income Tax Assessment Act has been.12:49:004103Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I am very happy to participate in the debate on the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill by way of summary. This legislation, I have to say, gives me a great deal of personal pleasure. I can recall raising problems in relation to anti-dumping measures in my own maiden speech in federal parliament. So I am pleased now as the minister to be able to bring legislation to the House which I believe will correct the serious deficiencies that exist in the legislation at the present time.I have listened with interest to the comments of honourable members. I would certainly like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate for their support for the legislation. It is perhaps a bit of a pity that this bipartisanship has been somewhat spoiled by some of the personal attacks by members of the opposition on the performance of government members. Let us make it abundantly clear right at the beginning of the debate: the anti-dumping measures we are correcting by this legislation were measures introduced by Labor in 1988.When Labor criticise the current system, when they say it is defective, they are criticising their own act, their own rules, their own regulations. I agree that they are right to criticise the current arrangements because they have not served Australian industry well and there is a need to speed up the process. In this legislation the government is giving effect to its election promise to deliver a 155-day examination period for anti-dumping inquiries and to ensure that Australian industries have speedy relief where there are proven allegations of unfair dumping or subsidisation.The shadow minister, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), also suggested that the government could have speeded this process up by simply taking up Labor's draft bill. Labor's draft bill—I have brought it along—is some 25 pages. The bill before the House is 84 pages. I am not one of those people who necessarily believe that legislation is better just because it is longer, but I would make the point that it ought to be pretty apparent to everyone that legislation that only took 24 pages has failed to address the issues that are associated with these particular matters. The shadow minister was also critical of the comments made on radio by the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) that the legislation was defective. In that regard, the member for McMillan is absolutely correct.The department of foreign affairs concluded that many of the substantive provisions included in the opposition's proposed bill were inconsistent with our international obligations and exposed Australia to the likelihood of international criticism and the potential for a challenge before the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement panel. The areas of defect included the lack of procedural fairness and the absence of any kind of effective review process. What Labor had proposed in their legislation was simply a mechanism for internal review. The concept of an investigating authority conducting an internal review on its own findings would certainly have called into question the credibility and impartiality of the entire process. Their legislation was defective in a range of other areas which made it impossible for it to be used as a basis for an effective review of these matters.DT4CREANMr Crean—Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: could I ask that that reference from the department of foreign affairs be tabled? GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—It is not a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—On the point of order: it is a request. Will you table it; what do you have to hide?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The tabling of a document is not a point of order. The minister is in reply in the second reading debate.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—I will reply also to some of the other matters that have been raised by the opposition in their contributions to this debate. They sought an assurance in relation to the operation of the Office of the Trade Measures Review Officer. The member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and also the shadow minister asked for an assurance that this would not be an ADA, an Anti-Dumping Authority, by another name. I think that their comments reflect their lack of understanding about anti-dumping procedures and the way in which their own system had worked in the past.Australia has a two-stage system for processing dumping and subsidy complaints in which two agencies undertake an investigatory function. On receipt of an application, Customs undertakes an investigation leading to a preliminary finding which, if positive, proceeds to the second agency. The ADA investigation takes the form of a fresh inquiry, or a de novo review, where all interested parties are invited to submit additional information to further their cases whether or not those parties were a part of, or cooperated in, the Customs preliminary investigation. So the comments of the shadow minister that sometimes there is new evidence considered is an inaccuracy. New evidence is considered virtually always. It is the investigative role of the ADA which industry criticises as leading to duplication, additional cost and delays and which allows parties to withhold information from the Customs preliminary investigation in the knowledge that it is possible to introduce that evidence before the ADA.It is a policy objective of the new system that investigations should need to be done only once, but thoroughly. All interested parties will be given every opportunity to fully participate in the investigation in order to protect their interests. All interested parties will be notified of the initiation of an investigation and will be invited to lodge submissions.A public file will be maintained throughout the investigation. A statement of essential facts will be published on or before day 110, and interested parties will be allowed 20 days to lodge submissions in response to that statement. If an interested party chooses not to avail itself of those opportunities to participate in the investigation, it will do so in the knowledge that it will be precluded from introducing new information in the review process.Unlike the ADA, the TMRO is not to undertake an investigative function. It will perform a pure appeal function and will be limited to assessing the minister's final finding in light of the claims made in the application for appeal and based on the information that formed part of Customs investigative record. Parties cannot seek to introduce into the new review process information that was not before Customs and the minister. The TMRO also cannot substitute its findings for those of the minister. I hope that that statement will give the opposition and others who may have had an interest in this issue an assurance that we will not be reinstituting the ADA by another name.Also by way of rebuttal, I noted that the member for Hotham once again referred to his old theme of the glyphosate case in relation to China. Let us make one point again abundantly clear—it is very important in the context of this legislation—that the Anti-Dumping Authority dismissed the glyphosate case for this fundamental reason outlined in its report. It stated:The authority has examined Monsanto's operations and it is not satisfied that the glyphosate acid produced in Australia by the company meets the local content requirements of subsection 269T(2) of the Customs Act. That subsection requires that not less than 25 per cent of the factory cost is of the goods incurred in Australia in respect of the goods.That particular inquiry found that the glysophate made in Australia did not meet the local content rule. This legislation also deals with that matter, because we are abolishing the local content rule—getting rid of another one of the legacies of Labor's ineffective anti-dumping and countervailing duty mechanisms.I welcome the bipartisan support for this legislation, even though some of it has not been presented in a particularly charitable spirit. I would like to particularly acknowledge the tremendous support and assistance in the preparation of this legislation that I have received from people like the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), the member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent), the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) and others who have taken a key active interest in these matters.I have had the privilege of visiting the paper mills in their electorates as well as citrus growers and others who have a particular interest in these areas. Their advice has been particularly helpful. Let me say that, if the people of Gilmore want somebody who is going to be in and around and participating in making the key decisions, they would be well advised to return the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, who has done an excellent job in ensuring that these matters have been actively pursued. It is far more important to be here and involved and talking to the companies than preparing 42 press releases, and wandering around the streets collecting petitions which clearly have had no impact whatsoever in the development of this legislation.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister is drawing a long bow on the bill. I call the members to order and I remind the minister to come back to the bill.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—The legislation has been prepared following thorough investigation by the government and consideration of the reports that have been commissioned in this matter. I believe we have a new system of anti-dumping and countervailing protection measures which will be welcomed by industry. There is a firm view by industry that this legislation should be given speedy passage. I would like to thank members of the government who have supported me in bringing this legislation to the House.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about the opposition?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—I also thank the members of the opposition who have agreed to vote for this comprehensive reform of the legislation, which will deliver real relief to these industries who have suffered from unfair competition from dumping or subsidised products.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4106Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills4106r5214106Consideration resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4106Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills4106r5004106Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.13:01:004106Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—No-one would dispute that the country of origin issue—the matter that this bill seeks to address—is a very difficult issue. Before the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) leaves, I will say that I think he has put an honest effort into resolving it; but whether he has succeeded is not so clear. The main provisions of the bill are to establish a 50 per cent and `substantially transformed' test for the use of the Made in Australia logo; to establish a close to 100 per cent test for use of the Produce or Product of Australia test; and to allow ministerial discretion to apply a stricter test. So for value-added manufactured goods, it is a 50 per cent test, it is a much higher test if you want to call it Product of Australia, but there will be discretion for the minister to apply stricter tests in certain circumstances.This bill is similar to legislation moved by the Labor government. The chief differences are that under our bill only one test for Made in Australia existed—the essential character test. Our legislation also sought to more closely define the various origin categories. When we, as a government, brought that legislation into the House, the then coalition played crass politics with that bill of Jeanette McHugh's.They opposed the bill, moving amendments that set a much tighter test for the Made in Australia label. Each major ingredient and all production operations had to be Australian sourced. That is what the then opposition insisted on doing to our bill. Of course, it is a much weaker test that they are putting forward today. They sought to create a new label—Manufactured in Australia—to cover the essential character category. The coalition's amendments were much tighter than proposed in Labor's bill and, interestingly, as I said before, much tighter than in this bill.The member for Ballarat (Mr Ronaldson) is not in the House at present but I will be interested to see whether he speaks in this debate, because he was one of those who waxed lyrical about the importance of having a system in which Made in Australia meant that nearly all the ingredients and all of the manufacturing must be sourced from Australia. What does he think of this bill? I will be interested to hear.It is extraordinary that more than two years after the federal election the government is now trying to rush this legislation through the parliament. In essence, it is a problem of the government's own making. It wouldn't support a bipartisan approach when we were the government and it has left it to the eleventh hour, now, to bring its own legislation forward.Firstly, the government allowed the Advance Australia Foundation to fold before this legislation came in. The management of the Australia Made logo—the green and gold kangaroo, which was developed under Labor's reign—was allowed to drift. They cut the funding, in the first coalition budget, for the Advance Australia Foundation. Well, that was a real commitment to the Made in Australia logo, to the organisation that had made such headway! That was a real commitment in terms of this parliament trying to get the legislative framework properly in place by which consumers could go into stores with confidence that what they were buying would be properly described! Also, that was a real commitment to an important legislative base which could send a clear signal to manufacturers and producers in this country as to what was required of them if they were claiming their products were Australian made!The concern amongst consumer groups and some primary producers that the system may not provide accurate labelling is as much about the government's neglect of this issue as it is about any shortcomings in the plan before us today. This bill appears to provide a level of certainty and simplicity in origin labelling—something major interest groups, industry, consumers, farmers and the trade union movement agree is a premium requirement. Also, it tightens existing labelling regulations.Labor will therefore not be opposing the origin provisions of this bill in the House of Representatives and we will not be seeking to delay the bill. We note, however, that the Democrats have referred the bill to a Senate legislation committee. While the Senate legislation committee is not the approach Labor would have preferred, now that we have got it, it will provide a useful opportunity to test a number of concerns that have been raised about certain provisions of this bill. It will also be an opportunity to test the level of support or opposition to the bill. The concerns include the impact of a 50 per cent test on domestic food manufacturers and the role of the ACCI as licensing agent for the Australia Made logo. When the bill does become law, Labor will be closely monitoring its implementation to ensure it meets the needs of all interested parties.That having been said, there is another element to this bill which I suspect the government hoped we would miss. Tucked away at the back of the bill are some `minor amendments to the Trade Practices Act'. These allow the ACCC to take representative action on matters of alleged contravention of part IV, Restrictive Trade Practices, and these actions can be retrospective. In other words, this is a power being given to the ACCC to take class actions retrospectively, and that is tucked away in this bill. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman) who is at the table is expressing some surprise about this. Perhaps he has learnt about it for the first time, as have other members in this chamber who thought this was just about product labelling. There is a much more sinister dimension to this bill.The minister's second reading speech claimed this was part of their `New deal: fair deal' small business package—allowing the ACCC to act on behalf of small businesses. But the real agenda was revealed by Allan Fels, the Chairman of the ACCC, on the Business Sunday program last Sunday. On that program he lamented that he did not have the power to prosecute the MUA—the Maritime Union of Australia—in these terms. He said:It was worth thinking about as an extra element in law.What a coincidence! Just like the coincidence that had the bill rushed into the parliament straight after the stevedoring levy bill—you know, the bill that was used to back the sacking of the Patrick's work force and replace it with another work force; the bill that was hatched overnight in the cabinet room; the bill that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) were slapping themselves on the back and laughing about as workers were being sacked.This bill followed immediately upon it. And inside that bill, tucked away, was the provi sion to get the MUA again; to have another arm—another part of the weaponry—to take legal action against the MUA. These amendments are squarely aimed at giving the ACCC additional power to prosecute the MUA and to do it retrospectively.I say to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Forrest): do not shake your head, get up and debate the point when you have got the opportunity, and tell us if we are wrong. Why is it that this was not drawn to our attention? The disgraceful thing about this episode, and it reflects very poorly on the minister and a particular business group—because these were the people who spent hours in briefing us on what they said were the important elements of the bill—was the fact that not once, in those hours of briefing given to the opposition on this bill, was this proposal mentioned.I think it is a very important issue and I would like the minister to indicate, at the appropriate time, why it was not mentioned. It is for that reason that Labor will oppose items 3 and 5 of schedule 2 of the bill. These are clearly intended to strengthen the ACCC's hand—initially against the MUA, but with wider implications down the track. They are totally unnecessary. If the government intended this class action to apply to small business, they would have included it in the fair trading bill.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Correct.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—And the shadow minister for small business is indicating his agreement to that assertion. If these matters were important, why did they not go into the fair trading bill—a bill which the minister pronounced to have satisfied the trade practices needs of small business? I ask you to take notice of this point: why did the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business come into this House and assert that his fair trading bill satisfies the trade practices needs of small business and then try to sneak this particular provision in? It is true to form for the minister, I might say: the sneakiness, the clandestine operation, the continuation of the conspiracy.There were further changes recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The government indicated that those changes would not be made before the release of a discussion paper responding to the commission's recommendations. That discussion paper has not been released, but the government is trying it on anyway. The government is using this bill—this otherwise worthy bill—to get up the obsession of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business with bankrupting the MUA. It is true to form for the minister. The conspiracy deepens: get the MUA at any cost; use the stealth of night, together with the balaclavas and the rottweilers, to take the work force. And all that time, you were introducing legislation to penalise unions pursuing legitimate activity.Let me say this also, because it is a very important point. What we have proposed here is a new power for the ACCC to go after unions on the basis that the minister claims that monopoly unionism is stopping competition on the waterfront.Why aren't they giving more powers to the Trade Practices Commission, through the Trade Practices Act and the ACCC, to enable it to pursue the anti-competitive practices on the wharf not associated with the union—for example, the monopoly control by the port authorities, the monopoly control that saw pressure put on to keep a new operator out of the port of Melbourne? When OOCL tried to come into the port of Melbourne, Patrick's sued the Victorian government to keep OOCL out on the basis that they said they had an understanding with the Victorian government that new operators would not be let in, and then, out of the Dubai fiasco, we have Patrick's, which would not lease wharf space to another operator, OOCL, bringing in the NFF on a sublease operation.I understand that OOCL, after a year's negotiation with the Melbourne Port Authority, pulled out because, unexpectedly, they were going to be charged $600,000 per hectare per year. This is totally out of step, I am informed, with world practice, because OOCL were going to build a facility at a cost of $150 million.Do you know what the wharf charge from Patrick's to the NFF was for the same access? It was $93,000 per hectare per year. Why isn't the ACCC investigating why a potential competitor can be kept out by being priced out of the market and then when a new operator, the NFF, comes in they can get a price of $93,000 per year as against $600,000 per year? I would have thought that raised serious questions about competition, about access and about the ability for new operators to come in and provide additional competition. That is what the ACCC should be investigating.They should also be investigating the settlement with the Victorian government and Patrick's, the secret settlement by which Patrick's sued the Victorian government to keep OOCL effectively out of the port of Melbourne. They should also be investigating where the opportunity for new entrants to effectively come into the port of Melbourne is being made available to them—not just wharf space but equipment. I think that you will find that the Patrick group have effectively sewn up all the remaining wharf space.At the same time as the ACCC should be investigating the anti-competitive practices consequent upon the monopoly control of the Melbourne Port Authority—and any port authority, for that matter—they should also be investigating the duopoly arrangements between the stevedores: for example, the arrangements that from time to time seem to emerge, the understandings, between a Patrick's and a P&O. They should also be investigating the cartel arrangements that the shippers, which are exempt from scrutiny under part 10 of the Trade Practices Act, can get themselves into.My point is this: what we need is more competition on the waterfront. We do need improved productivity, but we also need the competition that is going to drive the efficiency. But you are not going to get it if you have monopoly port authorities, duopolies as stevedores and cartels as shippers.The truth of the matter is that, in the time Labor was in government, we oversaw a restructuring program that took the work force in stevedoring activity—on the wharves, if you like—from 10,000 workers to 3,000 workers. When you are taking a work force down by two-thirds, you would expect there to be significant productivity gains consequent upon it, but those productivity gains will be trapped by the monopolies, the duopolies and the cartels.If those arrangements exist, there is no guarantee that the benefits and the savings that come from the restructuring of the waterfront will be passed on to the user, the customer. It is that sort of anti-competitive practice that should be being investigated by the ACCC. That is what Professor Fels should be attaching his energies to doing.It is all very well to go off and collect the so-called crate loads of information against the MUA and its arrangements with the International Transport Federation. It is all very well for him to be doing that and claiming it is within his mandate, but I would have thought these other things were much more in his mandate, because industrial relations are properly the province of the Industrial Relations Commission. Unfair competition, non-competitive practices and the ability to keep alternative operators out are clearly within the mantle of the Trade Practices Act, and it is what the ACCC should be directing its endeavours towards.We are going to oppose these sections of this bill, these sections that were not outlined to us in our briefing discussions—these provisions which were introduced, I suspect, at the behest and insistence of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. He has made this an urgency bill not for the product labelling aspect of it but because he wants another arrow in the quiver to fire at the MUA.It is not just the fact that this is a double standard, this sort of `concentrate only on the union and forget about the company arrangements' that is involved, we also have the retrospectivity, because this enables the class action power to the ACCC to pursue the MUA to be taken retrospectively. In other words, the minister is finding, much to his chagrin, that small businesses are not interested in taking action against the MUA. He wants the ACCC to take it on their behalf, he wants Professor Fels to continue to do his bidding and he wants to give Professor Fels an additional power so that he can do his bidding. I do not think any objectively minded person would disagree with the notion that Professor Fels has gone overboard to hound the union and done little to go after the monopoly provisions, the duopoly provisions and the cartel arrangements in the rest of the shipping and stevedoring activities. Yet this bill not only gives the power to strengthen Professor Fels' hands to continue to do the bidding of the government but gives him a retrospective power.The government has refused to implement a national retail tenancy code with retrospectivity clauses. Why is it introducing retrospectivity in this bill? The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business and the minister responsible for this bill, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, should take a leaf out of the book of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer), who wrote on 9 August 1995 in his own distinctive style:I carefully note the fundamentals involved with this important matter, and I have to say that I'm totally opposed to legislative retrospective detriments.You have the Deputy Prime Minister opposed to retrospectivity. Was he told about this provision when it was whacked through in cabinet? Was he, Minister? You have the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business refusing to implement retrospectivity in relation to the retail tenancy code, yet he wants to sneak it through here. We are not going to cop it, and we are going to vote against it. I would urge the minister—because I can see him looking worried and ponderous at the table at the moment—to actually reconsider these dimensions of the bill.We are urging him to take them out. They are not appropriate to be dealt with in this bill. They do not go to the issue of product labelling and country of origin. They go to nothing more than enabling Professor Fels to do more of the government's bidding in this morass that Minister Reith has created for himself, this botch job in terms of waterfront reform, this job that 10 judges to one in this country have found involved the breaking of the law and that there is an arguable case for an unlawful conspiracy—a conspiracy, we argue, between the government and Patrick's.This is another piece of legislation which perpetuates that conspiracy. That is why we will fight this. It is not appropriate to have it in here. You did not raise it in your discussions with us; you never drew our attention to it. When we signalled our support for this bill we were not aware of these provisions. We became aware of them only when going through the detail in the last few days.The Senate will not allow retrospectivity. They have not in the past, and I would be surprised if they allowed it on this occasion, particularly when they understand what nice little tricks your side has been up to. I think the problem is that the minister for workplace relations treats your side as badly as he does us. He does not tell the full story—ever. As a consequence, he gets himself into more and more strife, because people start to realise what it is he is trying to put over them.We are going to ensure that this issue is exposed. We are going to ensure that the minister for workplace relations, having made a botch of the rest of the industrial relations issue, does not get away so easily with sneaking through a provision that enables him to get Professor Fels to do his bidding in chasing the MUA, in trying to up the stakes in terms of the damages.We have still not heard in this parliament whether the government has indemnified the minister against damages. We know they have indemnified him against the costs, but have they indemnified him against the damages—damages consequent upon the unlawful conspiracy? The courts have found a prima facie case for the unlawful action. What we have to establish, and what the courts have to establish of course, is an increasing demonstration of the conspiracy—not that he was actively involved, directly involved or taking an act that resulted in the sacking itself; only that he facilitated, through actions, those things that led to the sacking.The minister for workplace relations will still not answer in this House, but we will make sure that when the opportunity exists in the courts for him to have to answer under oath, when the charges come on, he answers this simple proposition: was he aware in advance of the decision by Patrick's to sack its existing work force and replace it with another? That is a question he will not answer in this parliament. He tries to say that he knew nothing about the Dubai exercise, and he gets up in arms when we do not ask him a question about Dubai—deliberately now—because we know he has refined his defence just to Dubai. But the issue is whether he knew of or was involved in any alternative strategy by Patrick's to sack its existing work force and replace it with another.The minister will not answer that question in the parliament, but we have had it tested through a reputable polling agency. Do you know how many people believe the minister when he says that he had no involvement in that? Only 10 per cent. This is a minister that cannot be believed; this is a minister that the public have lost all confidence in. They do not trust him because this whole exercise has been a cloak and dagger process. It is almost like the Keystone Cops: you find the dogs and the guards, et cetera; police cars come along, get knocked down and bounce back up again, all in fast motion; and then they go onto a new track.This has been a Keystone Cops operation, and the fact that the government have not been able to carry it out properly not only is a reflection on the extent to which they will go to try and break a union and sack a work force through supporting corporate scam rearrangements, but fundamentally goes to the lack of competence of this government. They cannot even manage an outcome when they have been plotting and planning it for 12 months. They botch it. And now the minister, realising he has botched it, realising that he has got to up the ante on the union, finds that he has got to create more powers by which legal action can be taken against the union and the damages bill against the union can be raised. That is why the minister has hoodwinked the current minister at the table into accepting this provision in the bill.I said at the beginning that I think the minister has made a genuine attempt to deal with this difficult issue in the broad, and I congratulate him for it. But what I do not appreciate is being kept in the dark about the ramifications of these particular provisions. We will not support them. We will vote against them here, we will vote against them in the Senate, and we will expose publicly the extent to which this government is prepared to go to break a union and to support companies that are prepared to sack their workers overnight by rearranging their corporate structures. It is un-Australian and it should not be supported. We should not be giving extra powers to Professor Fels to support that un-Australian activity.13:31:004111Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—It is my intention to talk about country of origin labelling rather than to focus on what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean), has just irrelevantly contributed. I have sat here patiently while parliament's time has been wasted to the tune of 30 minutes whilst there are people out there who have waited a decade for the parliament to get to agree on this legislation.This matter has been an issue for me for the whole five years that I have been here. My very first question on notice in this very place was on this issue—to the then Minister for Consumer Affairs and then member for Grayndler. The consequence was that she came to my electorate and spoke to the same citrus growers and the same dried fruit growers that the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), the honourable member for Wide Bay, who now sits at the table, spoke to again this year during a visit. They had almost given up on whether this parliament had the capacity to bring the community together to pass this legislation. So my opening remarks are to congratulate the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs for having the courage to force it through.It is with a great deal of relief that I stand here finally as the government speaker in this debate. I appreciate the honour that has been given to me to speak on the coalition's behalf, particularly by those backbenchers who have worked extremely hard on this legislation. One is the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who represents similar citrus growers, dried vine fruit growers and dried tree fruit growers. Another is the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks). There are many other rural members who represent the food producers of our nation and, indeed, there are other members of this place who have interests in regard to whitegoods and all of the other consumables that are produced. So, what a relief it is to finally have the legislation here. It is also some relief to have some level of bipartisanship from the opposition.I was present last Thursday, only a week ago, at a public meeting attended by well over 200 pork producers from not only my part of the world but from South Australia and other parts of Victoria. The shadow minister for primary industry, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), was present at that meeting. He gave a commitment to those who urge for this legislation to be urgently supported and finally enacted so that they can get truth in labelling to meet their needs that he would ensure this bill had a speedy passage here. I am just appalled that the opposition have now sought to support the reference of this bill to another committee in the other chamber. There has been such a long history of this issue going to committees for referral. Why another inquiry? The debate is over. The consumers out there are demanding truth.There is an enormous amount of goodwill amongst Australians to support Australian growers. The dilemma they have when they approach the supermarket shelf is: which one is clearly identifiable as the Australian product? We have had this nonsense that has been allowed to happen in the last decade about the term `Made in Australia'. Court case after court case finally not only reduced the confidence that consumers have in a product but also the confidence that manufacturers have in putting that label on their product, given that many of their components come from overseas whereas the essential character and manufacturing of the item has used Australian labour.I noted the comments from the member for Hotham in the early part of his remarks indicating some responsibility by the government for not supporting the Australian Made logo and organisation. The reason was that that was a private enterprise, and it was the lack of confidence by manufacturers and everybody else that saw their demise. If anything should highlight the point about the confusion that exists in the minds of consumers and manufacturers, it is that very point, because, with court case after court case, the rules have never been distinct about what is the essential character of an item, how much its components are manufactured, and how much input of labour is by Australians.I hope that if there is an inquiry in the Senate—I would certainly prefer there not to be one and that the Senate just give their speedy assent to the legislation—it is swift, because pork producers are suffering tremendously out there; they have waited patiently for the parliament they elected to resolve this issue. I think the minister is to be congratulated for finally establishing a formula to get around this thorny issue of essential character. The implementation of a substantial transformation test is the way to indicate that.I note that the member for Burke has now entered the chamber, and I would remind him and other members present of the level of demand of those pork producers at that meeting in my electorate last Thursday. The substantial transformation test that this legislation provides is that, if 50 per cent of the cost of production of the goods is borne in Australia, that is the level that will determine the application of the term Made in Australia.But the real strength is the enshrinement of the terms Product of Australia and Produce of Australia. I think the debate we need to win in terms of public understanding, especially in relation to food, is that Product of Australia and Produce of Australia are the labels to look for on supermarket shelves. If one goes to a supermarket with a commitment to support Australian growers of food—that is in the interests of my electorate; the interests of others will be different, but mine is essentially to deliver to those citrus and pork producers of my electorate—Product and Produce of Australia are the two terms which are 100 per cent guaranteed to represent what is truly an Australian product. That is the public debate we need to win.In addition to that, to embrace the amount of manufacture and value adding that often goes on, many products made into a final item for consumption confusingly do include ingredients that are not made in Australia or not produced here, and we should have the term Made in Australia to describe the item as essentially, although not entirely, Australian.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—Fifty per cent.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—Fifty per cent is enough to accommodate everybody. If we want to revisit some higher percentage than that—70 or 75 per cent—this legislation will get buried again, as so many other manufacturers will re-enter the argument. We have been arguing about this for 10 years. It is virtually impossible to make the term mean all things to all men. If the essential character of the item and the substantial transformation test are in here, then let us make a decision on that and determine that that is sufficient for the item to be called Made in Australia. The real strength of the legislation that the minister has put before us in supporting Australian food producers are the two items Product of Australia and Produce of Australia. I just hope that we go on from here and win that debate from the public's perception.In conclusion, I would like to respond to the contribution that has been made by the member for Hotham. He has drawn an enormous and incredibly long bow between items 3, 4 and 5 in schedule 2 of the legislation to make any connection with what has occurred in the last month or so on the wharves. He is just looking for an excuse to divert the real issue here. I did not hear him speak once about the pain that citrus, dried fruit and pig producers have been going through. I did not hear him indicate once his concern for those people out there who carry the back of this nation. If he wants to indicate some level of bipartisanship on this, it is an irrelevancy to my pork producers at the moment to hear a 30-minute contribution about some alleged conspiracy in connection with recent activities on the waterfront. I was looking forward to a positive contribution from the member from Hotham, having heard the member for Burke publicly advocate his support for a speedy resolution of this legislation through both chambers of this parliament. This is a matter of urgency. The sooner this legislation is enacted the better. I am pleased to offer my support for it and commend it to the House. I look forward to its speedy transition.13:42:004113Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. We are anxious to move on to the consideration in detail stage so that members can contribute in the limited time available. I would like to thank those who have actively campaigned for this bill over a very long time. I make particular reference to the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) who, as he said, has been particularly forthright in pursuing especially the concerns of farmers in his own electorate who have wanted truthfulness and honesty in country of origin labelling. I am pleased that this legislation will in fact deliver certainty in the labelling of what can be called Product of Australia; namely, something that is 100 per cent Australian or as near to it as possible, and what can be called Made in Australia, that is, a product which must be substantially transformed in this country and of which the majority of the cost of production is incurred in Australia.These, I think, are important measures which will provide certainty to consumers. When they want to buy something that is Australian and the labels claim it to be Australian they will know after this legislation has been enacted that it is indeed Australian. It will also provide certainty to manufacturers whose confidence in the system has been damaged as a result of a number of seemingly conflicting court cases which have meant that people do not know when they can use descriptions like Made in Australia. It will also reinvigorate the Australian Made logo and clarify the circumstances under which it can be used. The legislation will give confidence to industry and to consumers that the claims about country of origin labelling can be relied upon. I commend the legislation to the House and I trust it will be given speedy passage also through the other chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4113Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2, items 1 and 2—by leave—taken together, and agreed to.Schedule 2, item 3.13:46:004114Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—We all feel for the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) if he finds it rather tiresome and boring that the opposition has got grave difficulties with this particular provision. It is ironic that today the representatives of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) have attempted to ensure that the conspiracy case against him is not heard before December of this year. There is no willingness—no keenness to have the matter decided—to allow the Australian public to know what has really been behind this waterfront dispute. I am very pleased that the MUA has tried to push this matter up front and very quickly, because, as other people have indicated, there are very serious doubts about the way in which this dispute was manufactured.We see here today an attempt to retrospectively tackle the MUA and its individual members. As a person who has been very interested in my time in this federal parliament in the immigration field, I find the actions of this current government quite interesting and informative. They cried week after week when the previous government tried to do something about exorbitant compensation payments for illegal boat people. They came in here and they said, `You cannot do anything retrospectively against these boat people—it is dreadful.' Yet here today they are saying that against Australian workers—PAYE taxpayers, people who fund our social security system, people who actually have tax deductions, as opposed to boat people—we can retrospectively tackle them and take away their rights. It is quite clear, despite the claim from the member for Mallee that this is a long bow, that this piece of the trade practices bill is designed to be retrospective. It is apparently so serious and so overdue and so urgent, but one has to question, when in other legislation they could have given themselves a large amount of this power, why today, at this point in history, it is so urgent.This is an attempt to allow the ACCC to pursue unions through the courts under the restrictive trade practices section of the Trade Practices Act for further future industrial action. I think it is also informative in regard to industrial relations in this country that for the last week or so the government have been bemoaning the plight of the Columbus boat. We are supposed to have such dreadful industrial action in this country, we are supposed to have so many laws that cannot tackle it, so it is very informative to actually face the fact that this ban is in America. The Republican governor of the state does not seem to be able to tackle it; he does not seem to have laws as draconian as this government's to basically smash people who take industrial action. It has been very informative to listen to this constant bemoaning of what is occurring in California. Quite frankly, it seems that that government, despite its powers and its opposition to the trade union movement in the United States, has not been too keen to do anything about it.What we do see is an attempt by the government, by the back door, in a very sneaky, underhand manner to bring in provisions that are quite separate from the main thrust of this legislation, which is the labelling of Australian products. That is what the bill is supposed to be dealing with: how we protect Australian industry and Australian jobs from unfair, misleading labelling. That is what we are supposed to be dealing with here today, and I am very sorry that the member for Mallee is a bit bored and a bit frustrated by the fact that we are actually talking about this provision being brought in without any consultation with the opposition.I would also like, very briefly, to refute his slanderous assault on the Advance Australia Foundation that he dismissed as a minor private operation. I think most of us are prepared to put on the record the work the foundation did in relation to the Advance Australia logo. This government, which comes up with all this rhetoric about how it is trying to help Australian manufacturers, is the government that pulled out $1½ million from the foundation, forced it to go into liquidation and essentially destroyed the `Australian Made' logo.13:50:004115Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—As has been indicated by a couple of speakers on this side, we do oppose this particular section of the bill because it would enable the ACCC to take representative class action for anti-competitive conduct. Clearly, whilst it has some superficial attraction to some, as we have indicated, it obviously has ramifications for the trade union movement in this nation, bearing in mind the almost pathological bent by certain members on the government side to destroy those organisations.I find it quite intriguing, as the shadow minister for small business, having debated in this chamber the passage of changes to the Trade Practices Act already this year and last year, to ponder why it is that suddenly we find this other amendment appearing out of the blue. If we are talking about small business, representative class action can already be taken in relation unconscionable conduct under part IV of the Trade Practices Act and for consumer protection under part V. Just to refresh your memory, I go to the source of those amendments that were moved in this parliament by the government in December in the House of Representatives and in April in the Senate which have now become law and will take operation as of 1 July. In the parliamentary inquiry `Towards Fair Trading in Australia' entitled, Finding a Balance, we find at page 133, recommendation 4.59:The committee recommends that the Trade Practices Act 1974 be amended to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to take representative actions under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which deals with various forms of restrictive trade practices including the misuse of market power.If this piece of legislation was so important why didn't the government choose to introduce this measure back in December when it dealt with small business issues, when it changed the Trade Practices Act to give effect to these sorts of matters?Why is it that in regard to the unconscionable provisions which have now become law and which will have operation from 1 July that the government decided to leave these sorts of recommendations out of that legislation? Why is it that at the 11th hour they have sought to put them into a piece of legislation, dressed up to tackle one of the most enduring, regrettably, issues which governments of all political persuasions have been endeavouring to tackle for a long period of time? The minister at the table, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), regrettably has been sold a pup on this issue. He has been beavering away; he is the third in a long line of ministers on the government side since they came into government two years ago to be given this particular responsibility but he is the one that has got closest to it. And we commend him for the fact that he has been prepared to bring into this place for debate origin labelling legislation, but unfortunately he has been sold the pup because—and he does like dogs, as we know—the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) is the one that has leaned on him as he has leaned on so many others in the small business community and elsewhere who have had to accept what he is prepared to offer—`put up or get nothing', as we have heard him say before—in these provisions which have a retrospective element.Madam Deputy Speaker, in the time that I have been here any attempts by the Labor Party when in government to put legislation in place on any issue which had a retrospective element to it was fiercely and with great vigour opposed by coalition members of the parliament, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate—vigorously opposed.And one who now sits as an independent, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who I have a lot of time and respect for, echoes those comments because he knows it is true. He knows that those members of the coalition when in opposition at every turn got up and argued the case about retrospectivity in any legislation. And yet here what we see is a retrospective element being introduced in respect of granting the ACCC powers to carry forward representative class action for anti-competitive conduct.As our colleague the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has already pointed out, it may well be that the ACCC and the media-shy Professor Allan Fels might like to turn his attention to some other elements of the way in which anti-competitive practices, whether it be on the waterfront or elsewhere, are being tackled in this nation. It may well be that there are some other important issues such as the way in which the waterfront is managed in Dampier, such as he indicated about the way in which another stevedoring company was prevented from coming onto the docks in Melbourne.Why is it that those sorts of issues have not been pursued? Has it been lack of will or lack of legislative background? Perhaps this might give him that wherewithal to do that. But at the other end of the spectrum, we oppose it for the insidious way in which it has been introduced. (Time expired)13:55:004116Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—There has been no attempt by the government to deceive the opposition in relation to this matter. The facts are that this particular item was announced by the government in the New Deal, Fair Deal statement on 30 September 1997. It was substantially publicised at that time and indeed I believe that probably the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) was amongst those who actually supported the idea of the ACCC being able to take representative actions. It is a move that is being sought by small business and widely supported, I think, by the broad cross-section of the community.It was certainly in the bill at the time the briefing was provided to members of the opposition. We referred you to what we believed to be controversial items. I am surprised that you consider this to be controversial in view of your previous support for these sorts of proposals. There is no conspiracy theory involved. The Commonwealth had to consult with the states, and I might add including the Labor state of New South Wales, in relation to these changes under the requirements of the national competition policy. It has taken some little time to undertake that consultation, but having now finalised that consultation process the government has included these clauses in the first available Trade Practices Act bill.The clause does not allow retrospective action against someone contravening the Trade Practices Act that could not be taken now by a small business victim. All the clause does is permit the ACCC to assist an aggrieved small business against contraventions of the Trade Practices Act. So the capacity to act in this regard is there in the current act. What this does is extend the capacity of the ACCC to assist a small business that is aggrieved.The shadow minister's paranoia about the ACCC and its legal right to pursue the MUA seems to be the real reason for these concerns, especially in regard to breaching the secondary boycott provisions and other provisions of the Trade Practices Act. These have no bounds. There is certainly no substance to the arguments that have been put forward by the shadow minister. I believe that the fundamental purpose of this bill is, as the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) said, to address country of origin labelling issues. Those are the matters of substance. Appropriate briefings have been provided to the opposition in that regard. These are matters that have been announced for a very long period of time, which have been the subject of discussions with the states, including the Labor state of New South Wales, and we are surprised, therefore, that the opposition suddenly considers them to be controversial.13:58:004116Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I also want to share in the comments of my two colleagues in the opposition in relation to this subsection because it is quite obvious that there is an intention behind this being brought in at this particular time. The so-called assurances the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) tried to make in no way indicated that the bill would not be used in that particular case in relation to the wharves issue. You did not indicate, Minister, that this was the case.The minister also referred to the fact that this was primarily intended for country of origin labelling. The situation with respect to that issue is that the minister has trumpeted himself as having brought forward this legislation, but this legislation is two years late. This legislation should have been before this chamber in the very first parliament after members opposite came into government, because in fact the whole thing had been negotiated with the trade union movement, with employers and with consumers' representatives over a long period of time, and I personally had a lot to do with those negotiations and we put that package together.What do we find two years later? Essentially, nothing much new from the package which we put together two years before except that, on the question of origin of labelling for food, the government has totally failed to take into account concerns of the food industry in relation to made in Australia labelling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Miscellaneous41174117Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) raised the question of photographs being taken from the press gallery. I thought that before we commenced proceedings I should explain that after investigation it appears that current guidelines do permit photographs to be taken from the press gallery in very restricted circumstances and only if there has been prior specific permission. This is not given lightly, nor had it specifically been given yesterday. The person taking photos from the press gallery yesterday, however, thought that he had permission and, consequently, it appears that there was a misunderstanding. In future, permission to take photographs within this chamber from whatever position will be given only after specific requests and approval from the Speaker's office.Questions Without Notice411741174117Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling a caller yesterday on Radio 6PR that whatever rate the GST is introduced at it `will stay at'? Did you mean forever? What do you mean by `forever'? Do you promise to never ever increase the rate of your GST?4117Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I made a statement yesterday on Perth radio, and I stand by that statement. These matters, of course, will be resolved by the Australian people, as they should be, through the ballot box. They will decide whether they believe me or they believe the opposition. In making that decision, they will be greatly instructed and guided by the knowledge that in 1993 the current Leader of the Opposition—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Wasn't that when the fistful of dollars appeared?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, went to the Australian people knowing full well that if they were re-elected they would introduce their own version of a goods and services tax, and refused to tell the Australian public that. They will also know that when the Leader of the Opposition went to the election in 1996 he absolutely concealed the true state of the budget deficit. So, in making an assessment of whether they believe the Leader of the Opposition or whether they believe me, the Australian public will be guided by the behaviour and the track record of the Leader of the Opposition.In 1993 he promised income tax cuts and no GST. And when he won the election on the strength of that promise, he gave the Australian public the exact reverse, as Dr Warren has pointed out. Not only did we have the infamous repudiation of the l-a-w, law, tax cuts, but we also had the Labor Party's version of a goods and services tax after 1993—and for good measure and for added insult to the battlers of Australia, there was no compensation.41174117Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister confirm that the ship Columbus Canada has had to sail from the United States to New Zealand to be reloaded and then return to the United States to deliver its cargo, because of union thuggery and blackmail? What message does this send to our overseas trading partners? 4118Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—It is my melancholy duty to inform the House that the Columbus Canada has in fact now sailed from the west coast of the United States of America as part of a very costly transhipment of containers, which is going to put in jeopardy the jobs of exporters here in Australia—large and small. The member for Charlton and the frontbench of the Labor Party might rejoice in this, but I want to refer to the Daily Telegraph editorial today, which quite correctly gave real prominence and highlight to the other side of this equation:In the wake of our ship of shame—That is the only part of the editorial they got wrong. It is not our ship of shame. It is John Coombs's ship of shame. It is the MUA's ship of shame. It is Kim Beazley's ship of shame, who has in no way condemned this costly transhipment of Australian containers which are the subject of a piece of blackmail, a piece of thuggery, which you seem to rejoice in. Why have you not rejected this development?In addition to vital Australian beef exports, in addition to wheat gluten, there is yet another container in that shipment, involving a market breakthrough for the first time to USA and Mexico by a smaller company, Lavery International, a small dairy company based in Victoria. That company had just managed to win a contract in northern America—and part of that in Mexico—after strong competition from other competitors. Loaded on that ship is gouda cheese valued at $US60,000—about $A100,000. It is now past its use-by date and is no longer suitable for the client. You have contributed to the destruction of a new export deal to northern America from Australia.The government stands very firm in support of waterfront reform. And why wouldn't we, when you have this shocking conduct mounted against Australian exporters and agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition, the person who would have us believe that he would be a responsible Prime Minister of this country? I quote further from the Daily Telegraph editorial:It demonstrates that the Federal Government is right to insist on waterfront reform to put an end to the corrupt practices and poor productivity of the MUA.A union willing to undermine our export markets to maintain a closed shop must not be tolerated.We will push on with genuine waterfront reform. We have made a number of diplomatic representations with regard to the Columbus Canada and we will stand up for our exporters.41184118Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall yesterday defining `never ever' as lasting only till the next election? Is he aware that the Concise Oxford Dictionary —the same dictionary that he relied on to defend his Menzies directorship—defines never as, `At no time. On no occasion. Not ever. As an emphatic negative. Not at all'? Prime Minister, will you be writing to the publishers of the Concise Oxford Dictionary with your new definition?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not think the Prime Minister is responsible for definitions in the dictionary. I call the Prime Minister.4118Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—You are a great definition of an emphatic negative, if I have ever heard of one! It is very interesting, this line that the opposition is taking. Apparently there is something wrong with a political leader going to the public and actually telling them what he is going to do if he gets re-elected. I am guilty of the political crime of saying to the Australian public that I am going to tell the Australian public what I am going to do and, if I am re-elected, I am going to do it. The Leader of the Opposition does the reverse when he is in government; in other words, he deceives the Australian public about what he intends to do. He did not do it once; he did it twice. In 1993, he conspired with Paul Keating to mislead the Australian public about the introduction of the Labor Party's version of a goods and services tax. And in 1996 he conspired with the same Paul Keating to mislead the Australian public about the size of the budget deficit.By contrast, I went to the 1996 election saying that there will not be a GST in our first term. I go to the coming election saying that we are going to reform the Australian tax system and I will tell them how we are going to reform it. What is the reply of the Leader of the Opposition? The reply of the Leader of the Opposition is that, even if the Australian public votes for our tax reform policy, he will try to stop it.I operate on the principle that the Australian public are the political masters of this nation. The Australian public will decide who they want to vote for. The Australian public are entitled to be told before an election what a government will do after the election. They do not deserve to be misled. They do not deserve to be deceived. They will not be misled and deceived by me. I will lay out our tax plan and I will be very happy to accept the verdict of the Australian public.41194119Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, I understand that the Maritime Union of Australia has claimed that the Federal Court order which restrains the MUA from inciting international boycotts against ships loaded by non-union labour during the waterfront dispute would have no effect. Is this a sensible or reasonable response to a Federal Court order which is designed to protect Australia's international trading interests?4119Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. It is not a reasonable response from the MUA.DT4CREANMr Crean—What would you know about it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—The reason I say that is that the relationship between the MUA and the ITF is well known. To give the House two examples, on Melbourne Radio 3AW earlier this year, on 2 February, Mr Kees Marges from the ITF—which is the international union for the Maritime Union—was asked by the compere, `The MUA has asked you?' He said, `We are following requests and we are looking at what is going on in ports all over the world.' So it is quite clear, as he makes that statement, that the ITF is responding to requests from the MUA to black-ban Austral ian exports. Furthermore, on 8 April on Australian television, Mr Cockcroft from the ITF was asked about the involvement of the ITF organising against Australian exports. He said:We had a meeting last June in Miami where all the dockers union signed what we called a solidarity contract—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question went to the responses to the decision of the court yesterday. There was only one response from the MUA to that decision and that is that they will comply with it. They have said that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not now raising a point of order. He will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He is now dealing with matters that occurred before the decision. How could it be relevant?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are not to rise in your seat and argue a question. If you wish to raise a point of order, you may do so.WI4Mr REITH—It would be of no surprise to anybody in this House—DT4CREANMr Crean—You can't tell the truth.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham!WI4Mr REITH—It would be no surprise to anybody in this House to see the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition, whose political party is today raising funds—$50 a week from his own front and back bench—to support the MUA which is running a campaign against Australian exports. As Mr Cockcroft said:We had a meeting last June in Miami where all the dockers unions signed what we call a solidarity contract where they pledged this kind of action, if this kind of thing happened, that they would take the necessary action.Here it is as plain as the nose on your face: these people have been in cahoots, conspiring against Australian exporters. Yesterday, we got a Federal Court injunction against them. You ought to be apologising to Australian exporters.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills will remain silent.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Wills!WI4Mr REITH—They are not passing the hat around for small business; they are passing the hat around for the MUA which is running a campaign against Australian exporters. So we get `Labour International'. Exporters finally break into a market, they have a container of gouda cheese, valued at $96,000, on board and they are now unable to supply that market as a result.The Manildra group has containers on this ship. They reckon, in a letter we have from them, that the cost to them is $450,000 to $500,000 in this financial year alone as a result of the deduction from the quota. Why? Because Australia is not a reliable supplier. Why? Because the MUA is running a campaign against Australian exporters which you are publicly supporting. We have some details of the what is on board the Columbus Canada—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 59, which states that every member desiring to speak shall rise and address the Speaker. He is making accusations against you and I ask that you call him to order. I raise an additional point of order under standing order 145 on the general question of relevance. I also raise a number of points of order in connection with standing orders 75 to 77. Standing order 75 states:No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member . . . Standing order 76 states:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.Standing order 77 states:When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the Chair or by a Member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member has made his point of order.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Mr Speaker, following those points of order, I ask you to protect me against the violence of the minister, who obviously—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat. You have raised several points of order. I would point out to all members that there are actually standing orders numbered 1 to 402, and I suggest that you comply with the lot of them. In terms of addressing the chair, there is a requirement, and I ask the minister to resume his remarks and to address the chair.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, the member for Charlton did not address the chair when he called for this ship to be sunk. This is the member who has the support of the Leader of the Opposition when he stated publicly he was pleased that 40 tonnes of top quality beef, which was only chilled, would now have to be dumped. This is an opposition that thinks it is reasonable, fair and in the public interest that any produce of those who are not members of a union ought to be black banned.This is a member, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who believes that if you are not a member of a union, you are a scab. This is a member, with the support of the Leader of the Opposition, who probably thought it was fair enough, when those workers went back to work at Darling Harbour, that this union, as its first act, took industrial action. The second act that it took—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—WI4Mr REITH—Your embarrassment is clear for all to see.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance. The specific question related to the Federal Court's determination and the passage of that ship. He is now ranging far and wide about the generalities of this dispute. I would ask you to bring him back to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order regarding relevance. I suggest to the minister that he address the question.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, it does range far and wide for the opposition to publicly condemn anybody who is not a member of a union as a scab. It does range far and wide, when thousands of businesses have been affected by a policy position advocated by the Labor Party, when they are publicly raising funds to support the MUA which today is in breach of a Federal Court injunction. That ranges pretty wide, Mr Speaker. That ranges right across the national interest.Those workers at Darling Harbour complained that they were asked to wear the safety vests of those people who had been wearing them and had been working there before. They said, `These vests are unclean, put them in a plastic bag and burn them,' because they were worn by people who are not members of a union. It is pretty far ranging that, at the heart of this dispute, the Labor Party is supporting compulsory unionism on the waterfront and the repealing of the secondary boycott provisions which were the subject of the proceedings in the Federal Court yesterday and which allow this union to hold this country to economic ransom.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. The specific question related to the court decision and the situation of the ship. This is just a mad rant, Mr Speaker, and it ought to be dealt with.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not in a position, during the raising of a point of order, to go into a debate on the subject. The question was wide ranging and the minister is in order.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I have had more interruptions from the Leader of the Opposition than I usually get from the ABC.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!WI4Mr REITH—You are always guaranteed to react. Mr Speaker, what we are seeing with the Columbus Canada is the Labor Party's policy in action. This injunction yesterday was an injunction granted under the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act and their policy is to repeal those provisions. Why are they doing so? Because it is a payback for the support from the MUA. They are publicly raising funds for a union which is working against the public interest. They deserve to be condemned. It shows you what a weak leader the Leader of the Opposition is.41214121Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that GST rates have increased in 21 of the 23 OECD countries that have this tax, what assurance, other than your word, can you give Australians that the GST rate will not rise here?Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs will remain silent.Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs.4121Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I wonder whether, before we get to the election, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, having `fessed up about the budget deficit and having `fessed up a couple of days ago about giving Chris Skase a new passport, will `fess up to the fact that they all got their heads together before 1993 and said, `We'll run this line about giving tax cuts without a GST, but if we slip back into office, we'll introduce our own version of a GST.' I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have stated government policy. It remains the position. You can say what you like; nothing will alter the position and the Australian public will decide whether they believe you or us.Distinguished Visitors412110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Roger McClay of New Zealand, who is the Commissioner for Children in that country and a former minister in the New Zealand parliament. I extend to Mr McClay a very warm welcome to Australia.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice412141214121Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how the overall competitiveness of Australia's taxation system compares with the rest of the world?4122Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Yesterday the President of the Business Council, Mr Stan Wallis, delivered a very important speech on the future of the Australian taxation system. In the course of that speech, he presented a very coherent and indeed an overwhelmingly effective case in support of taxation reform. Mr Wallis not only explained many of the domestic advantages of reforming the Australian taxation system but, not surprisingly, as the President of the Business Council of Australia, addressed his mind and turned his attention to the competitiveness of the Australian economy.He drew attention to the global competitiveness report which is published annually by the respected World Economic Forum. This latest report found that Australia ranked 17th out of 53 countries in terms of overall competitiveness. But, interestingly enough, what that survey disclosed—and what Mr Wallis's speech also analysed and disclosed—was that Australia's outdated taxation system is a major reason why our competitiveness position is not higher.The report found that the overall competitiveness of Australia's tax system ranked 41 out of 53 countries. That is the system that the Leader of the Opposition wants to maintain. That is the system that the Leader of the Opposition says does not need any change. That is the system that the Leader of the Opposition is now bound to hand and foot. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition will say to the Australian public, `Although we are approaching the next millennium, although we are going into the 21st century, we do not need a 21st century taxation system.' The Leader of the Opposition is quite prepared to say to the Australian public, `To hell with the competitiveness of the Australian economy.'By contrast, all of the actions that my government has taken since being elected have been designed to provide greater security, stability and safety through greater competitiveness for the Australian economy. The speech delivered by Stan Wallis yesterday demonstrated that, unlike the Australian Labor Party and unlike sections of the trade union movement, the business community of Australia is looking to the national interest.There are two prerequisites for taxation reform in Australia. One of them is that the reform should be in the national interest of Australia, and the second is that the structure of the reforms should be fair to all sections of the Australian community. The Australian community is indebted to Mr Wallis for such a penetrating and cogent analysis of the weakness of the present Australian taxation system. What he has done is to look to the national interest. What he has done is to say that we need a tax system that makes Australia more competitive.We need a taxation system that will take Australia with pride and strength, and in a forward looking way, into the 21st century. It is very obvious, as every day goes by in this tax debate, that the only side of politics that is interested in the national interest, the only side of politics which is looking to the future, the only side of politics that really wants a competitive Australia is made up of the members of the Liberal and National parties.41224122Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Will the Acting Treasurer confirm that immediately after the introduction of the 10 per cent GST in New Zealand in 1986 inflation rose by over eight per cent and interest rates rose by over 10 per cent, with interest rates still running above 19 per cent a full year later? Isn't the New Zealand experience proof beyond doubt that a GST equals higher prices equals higher interest rates?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not doubt that the Acting Treasurer is happy to answer the question, but I note that standing order 144 prohibits questions which anticipate debate on an order of the day or other matter. I note that the opposition has circulated a matter of public importance on the GST in particular. So far, we have had four questions on the GST. Can they have it both ways?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Although there is a blue circulated, the honourable member for Parramatta would know that a matter of public importance is not initiated in the House until such stage as the Speaker rises, reads the letter and determines which of those matters will be chosen. Therefore, the matter is not on the Notice Paper .SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to standing order 142, which states:Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected.Much as I am sure we would do an equally good job for New Zealand as we have for Australia, the minister is not officially responsible for the interest rates or inflation in New Zealand.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Finance and Administration is the Acting Treasurer and as a result he is, for the time being, supervising the whole of the Australian economy.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the opposition to desist in their adulation of the member.4123Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I add to those remarks that I am supervising an economy that is in very, very good shape as the result of the work of the coalition government. I note with interest that the member for Holt has asked me a question on a consumption tax—on a broad-based indirect tax. I know the member for Holt is a great supporter of indirect taxes and a consumption tax. The authority for that comes from one David Morgan. It came through an ABC documentary—and, of course, we know that an ABC documentary would be very, very accurate—called Labor in power . The quote from David Morgan was:For me the breakthrough came, I think, around 1 a.m. on the Monday morning when Gareth Evans threw down his papers and took off his glasses and said, `I've listened to this consumption tax argument for two days, and I have been waiting for the hole to be punched in it. None of you have been able to punch a hole in it.'VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there sure as hell was a hole punched in it a year later in 1986 in New Zealand. That is what this question is about.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader is not raising a point of order.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On the point of relevance, he was asked about New Zealand and its implications for Australia and the argument that a GST does in fact increase prices and interest rates. That is the question and that is what he ought to answer, and you ought to draw his attention to that.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader will resume his seat. Members of the government are not helping; their level of interjection at the moment is unacceptable. The Minister for Finance and Administration will answer specifically the question addressed to him by the deputy leader.HQ5Mr FAHEY—The reason I informed the House of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's views on broad based indirect taxes, consumption taxes, is that he referred to a time in New Zealand in 1986. That quote comes from around that same time.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—HQ5Mr FAHEY—I am delighted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition welcomed the fact that I used that quote and that he remembered it so well. If only he had such a good memory in respect of passports—people like Christopher Skase and what might have happened there. Of course, the Australian people would like to know a little more about that.What I can say is this: the Australian economy is in very good shape because this government accepted the challenges that were presented to it. We accepted the fact that we had to address the $10.5 billion black hole. We accepted the fact that we had to live within our means. We promised that we would get the budget back into balance in our first term, and we have delivered. We accepted the fact that our workplace law needed some change, and we have made those changes. We have made the Australian workplace a far more productive place as a result.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. Isn't he stretching your tolerance on the question of relevance just a tiny little bit—just a tiny little bit? The question was about the impact of a GST on inflation and interest rates. I know he can't answer it, but shouldn't you at least require him to take a stab at it and use the words `interest rates' and `inflation' somewhere in his answer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Finance and Administration will answer the question. At the moment, he is answering it within the standing orders.HQ5Mr FAHEY—The point I make in respect of the last 2¼ years and the way in which the coalition government has brought the economy back into shape is that there is still one step that has to be taken. That step was pointed out, as the Prime Minister said, so coherently and so logically by the President of the Business Council of Australia only yesterday. The one thing we need to ensure that productivity continues, that job creation continues, that we maintain low inflation and low interest rates and that we increase our exports is to fix up a tax system which is all but broken. I do not care what New Zealand did. I know what will happen in Australia. I can assure you that what New Zealand did in the 1980s will have no bearing on what this government will bring to Australia in the 1990s. The next step that will ensure that that happens, that we will get that sustainable economic growth, is that we will put a taxation system in place that will give that incentive to exports, that will create those jobs and that will maintain that sustainable growth.41244124Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is also to the Acting Treasurer. Has the Acting Treasurer seen alternative proposals advocating income tax cuts without any change whatsoever to indirect tax? What is the government's response to these proposals?4124Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen reference to proposals by the Labor Party to cut income tax. Those references, of course, had their origins in a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition last Sunday to the Victorian branch of the ALP. Since that time, I have noted that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been embracing the airwaves; they have been running round the dial getting an opportunity wherever they can to speak on what they propose by way of income tax cuts.What they are saying they will deliver to low and middle income families is a new fridge and some new clothes and that they will fund that new fridge and some new clothes by way of income tax cuts. We know, of course, that all of this has been said before; it is deja vu. Before the 1993 election the promises coming from these very same people were that, firstly, there will be no increases in taxes and, secondly, `We will in fact give you tax cuts; we will legislate l-a-w tax cuts.' What happened after the 1993 election? It was fairly obvious, because in that budget—the preparations for that budget were undoubtedly done probably before the count in the Senate had been completed—what did they deliver? They delivered their own version of the GST—increases in wholesale sales tax. So the new fridge that they are now offering low and middle income families was given a 10 per cent tax rise, and the equivalent in the way of a wholesale sales tax rise of a new fridge was given in respect of a motor vehicle.But we are seeing a little truth from the Labor Party in recent times. A couple of weeks ago we had an admission by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, yes, they did leave the budget in that $10.5 billion deficit state. Again, we had the acknowledgment last night on the PM program by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `Yes, we did increase wholesale sales taxes back after the 1993 election, despite the promise we made to the Australian people.' So what we know is that this is the man, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is going to be the author of the tax policies; he is going to be the author of what Labor presents to the Australian people before the next election. He is the man that has this truth tablet he takes each night and then out he goes and indicates clearly that he supports a consumption tax. He told the states only last year that he would encourage them to introduce death duties to get their income. This is the man that supports new taxes; he supports increased taxes.What they are saying now to the Australian people is, `We are going to give you relief if you are low and middle income families, the equivalent of a new fridge.' What they are saying is, `We are going to fund that by increases in wholesale sales tax.' Our GST is going to get you, and added taxes to it.' There is only one thing that you can believe the Australian Labor Party on when it comes to taxes. The one thing that you can believe, the one thing that you can trust them on, is that they never tell the truth on tax.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the members of the opposition will restrain their enthusiasm, I will give their leader the call. The members of the opposition, including the honourable member for Burke, might allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question.41254125Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's statement of today? He said:By no stretch of the imagination can the coalition parties in Queensland claim One Nation policies are less harmful than those of the Australian Labor Party. On one issue alone, One Nation stands condemned: its policies are anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal and anti-Semitic. Its policies are racist.Do you recall telling this House on 5 June, after Eddie Mabo's grave had been desecrated:. . . the best messages all of us can convey to those who peddle racist bigotry is to . . . brand them as moral outcasts of our society.Prime Minister, why won't you follow Mr Fraser's lead and tell your party to put One Nation last? Is it because you think he is wrong or is it because you are not prepared to live up to your own words?4125Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is no, I was not aware, but as the statement has been—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You should be aware.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, I wasn't. I have been busying myself with other matters today, I can assure you. My attention having been drawn to the words uttered by the former Prime Minister, let me say a couple of things. The first thing I would say is that the distribution of preferences in the state election in Queensland is, of course, a matter for the Queensland division of the party and is a matter for the Queensland divisions of both the Liberal Party and the National Party.The second observation I would make is that, when it comes to the allocation of preferences, the man who has just asked me the question is the man who authorised the Western Australian branch of the Labor Party in the 1996 election to place the former Labor member for Kalgoorlie, the continuing member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Campbell, in preferences terms ahead of the Liberal Party candidate in that ballot, despite the fact that views expressed by the current member for Kalgoorlie on many immigration matters are similar to those expressed by the One Nation Party.The man who asked the question is also the person who authorised a sleazy preference deal between Australians Against Further Immigration and the Australian Labor Party in the Lindsay by-election. He is also the person who has said to his shadow ministry, `When you go to Queensland be careful what you say about Wik and when you go to Queensland make sure that you run your comments past Wayne Swan before you say anything about Wik in Queensland.'I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in taking that stance what he is doing is speaking with one voice to one section of the Australian community and speaking with another voice to another section of the Australian community. The Leader of the Opposition has no authority to give moral lectures to me or to any member of the Liberal Party or the National Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the statement of the former Prime Minister.Leave not granted.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Here it is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not in a schoolroom now. The members of the government are not helping.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Grow up, please, for goodness sake!41264126Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of recent action taken by the Australian government in assisting Asia through the current financial crisis and the implications this has for Australia's standing in the region? How does this contrast with Australia's regional initiatives in years gone by?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is certainly going to go over well in Macquarie.4126Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member for Prospect once more—for the 496th time today—interjects, this time she is right: it will go down well in Macquarie. It is a very good question and well asked.I would have to say that over the last nine or 10 months or so we have been wrestling in the Asia-Pacific region with the impact of the Asian economic crisis, but out of any crisis comes opportunity and the Australian government has taken the opportunity during this period to make a historic shift in Australia's positioning in the region.We have gone from a country which at times looked like a howling and scratching country at Asia's door to a confident country able to make a strong contribution during a time of crisis. We have done that in a very constructive and very positive way. We have contributed to all three East Asian IMF packages and we have provided export insurance to Korea and Indonesia. The Reserve Bank of Australia has provided assistance, including seconding an officer to Indonesia. AusAID has established an Asia crisis fund in next year's aid budget.Importantly—and I note that this has received rather little publicity, if I could complain about that—the Prime Minister's initiative for the APEC finance ministers meeting, which was carried forward by the Treasurer, was an initiative adopted by the APEC finance ministers meeting to build stronger financial sectors through improving the standards of prudential regulation. It includes training initiatives amongst regional financial institutions. There is a whole range of different things that Australia has done to change its standing in the region from a country which was clawing to try to be accepted by the region, to being a country which is a serious, considered and valued contributor and friend as part of the region.RH4KERRMr Kerr—You are changing our standards all right!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison!4G4Mr DOWNER—It is in that context that I have to say I was just a tad disappointed to hear the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last night, who sought to misrepresent the government's policies towards Asia and suggest, almost incredibly, that the government was pursuing a policy of withdrawing from Asia. This allegation is clearly false. Anybody who knows anything about public policy in Australia knows how totally false that is. But it does remind us of the way, in years gone by, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as the foreign minister, went to Asia in a deferential way trying to claw his way into the region. I do not think anybody should ever be allowed to forget July 1995 in Brunei when the then foreign minister, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, went up there carrying with him a map of East Asia. This is the map. You will remember the map. Here is Australia on the map. Here is Antarctica. Here is East Asia. He went around with this map to foreign ministers from the Asia-Pacific region and pointed out to them, `Here's Australia. It's on this map. We're part of the region. Australia is on this map.' This was one of the all-time humiliating moments for Australia, and it was summed up in an article by Geoffrey Barker of the Financial Review , who said:Senator Evans has seemed pathetically anxious to establish Australia as an East Asian Hemisphere nation.Pathetically anxious, that is what you were. As the Reuters Business Briefing said:Mr Evans's definition of the East Asian Hemisphere and of his country's place in it evoked surprise followed by indignation.We have gone from the position under Labor where we were almost apologetic in our approach to Asia, pleading to be accepted as part of the region, to being a country which is a major contributor, which plays a significant role in the region and can stand proud at last, instead of crawling in the humiliating way we did under Labor.RH4KERRMr Kerr—You wouldn't even recognise China.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the member for Denison remain silent.41274127Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the great Australian dream is to own your own home. Will the many materials currently exempt from sales tax that are used for the construction or repair of homes and other buildings, such as timber, concrete, roofing and plumbing, be exempt when you introduce your GST? Will the currently sales tax exempt items important for rural Australians, such as water tanks and stands, be exempt from your GST? If these and the many other basic building materials currently not subject to sales tax are not exempt from your GST, will it be more expensive for Australians to buy and maintain their homes?4127Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am very interested that the honourable member has raised the great Australian dream. One of the greatest contributions that you can make to buying a home in this country is having record low housing interest rates. I would remind her and everybody who sits opposite that my government has delivered the lowest housing interest rates that this country has had since the 1960s, that it is my government that has cut interest rates by $330 a month on the average loan, and that it is my government that has delivered interest rate cuts that are worth the equivalent of a $100-a-week wage rise for the average wage and salary earner in Australia. So the message out of that is that, if you want to enjoy the great Australian dream, there are only two parties to vote for—that is, the Liberal Party or the National Party.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why don't you answer your little friend Pauline Hanson's question about the GST?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Under standing order 304A, I ask the member for Denison, who has been warned and who has been persistently interjecting, to leave the House for one hour.The honourable member for Denison thereupon withdrew from the chamber.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The honourable member for Oxley's raising the great Australian dream gives me an opportunity to remind her and those who sit opposite not only of the way in which housing interest rates have fallen but also, of course, that when the Labor Party was in power housing interest rates in this country climbed to levels that had not been experienced at any time since the end of World War II. In the early 1990s, housing interest rates in Australia went to 17½ per cent. Now they are in the order of six, seven or eight per cent. In other words, they are down at levels that were undreamt of by Australians only a few short years ago. The most comprehensive legacy in the past 2¼ years that my government has given to the average Australian has been to bring those housing interest rates down.The other message that I would give to the member for Oxley is that, if the Labor Party were to be elected to the government benches at the next election, those low interest rates would be at risk because the tax and spend policies of a Beazley Labor government would drive interest rates up again. As sure as one can be of anything in Australian politics, if Labor again becomes the government of this country all of those low interest rates will disappear. They will disappear very quickly. Just as Labor ran a high interest rate policy when it was in government before, it will run a high interest rate policy if it is in government again.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Kalgoorlie on a point of order.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—I think the Prime Minister has finished actually, so it now irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not think the Prime Minister has concluded. Have you concluded, Prime Minister?ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I have not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kalgoorlie on a point of order.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Quite clearly, it is on the point of relevance. We are talking about the relevant cost of materials. Why does the Prime Minister not tell us about the record interest rates he had in 1982?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kalgoorlie will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am glad the member for Oxley asked me about the great Australian dream, because the great Australian dream is of enormous importance to all Australians. So far as the impact of tax reform on the housing industry is concerned, I can assure the honourable member for Oxley that the building industry and all allied industries in this country—like all other sections of the Australian business community—will welcome the tax reform package when it is announced.41284128Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, has your attention been drawn to the recent comments made by the Queensland opposition leader that he would work to implement the government's native title legislation. What is your response to these remarks?4128Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As it happens, my attention has been drawn to some remarks that were made by the Queensland opposition leader, Mr Peter Beattie. He said that he has conceded that he could be forced to implement our native title legislation. The article makes the very interesting observation that:Sources said Mr Howard was expected to seize on Mr Beattie's concession to attack federal Labor over the issue.They were very perspicacious sources. What this represents is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland to have it both ways. What he is really saying is that he does not agree with the native title legislation but wink-wink, nod-nod, he is saying to the Queensland community, `I really basically do think it is not a bad idea. The way in which I am going to demonstrate that is that, if after all of my valiant efforts to stop it coming in John Howard gets it through the federal parliament after the next election, I am going to get it in as quickly as possible.' In other words, when he talks to the Queensland people—particularly when he is touring the rural areas of Queensland—he will be able to say, `I have to stand shoulder to shoulder with Kim Beazley when I am in Melbourne or Sydney or when I am addressing some kind of congress that has another point of view, but you must understand that, when I am addressing you as a Queensland audience, I really think Howard has got it right.'He is right on this. Howard has got it right. Our native title legislation is a balanced attempt to deal with a very difficult problem. Our native title legislation will benefit Queensland. Our native title legislation should not have been rejected in the Senate and those people who voted against it in the Senate were voting against the interests of the Queensland people. Those people who voted against it in the Senate were voting to delay resolution of a difficult problem. What Peter Beattie has done by his two-sided admission yesterday is acknowledge that deep down it is in the interests of Queensland that the government's native title legislation be passed, but he is hamstrung by the commitment he has made to the federal Leader of the Opposition. This is yet the latest example of where the Labor Party, on issues related to native title, say one thing to one audience and say another thing, either directly or by a wink and a nod, to a different audience.What Peter Beattie has done is to demonstrate very clearly to the Queensland public that deep down a resolution of the native title issue as proposed by my government is the only way to solve the problem, it is the only fair way to deal with the problem, it is the only way you will deliver security and predictability to the pastoralists of Queensland. Unless the native title issue is resolved, there will be many hundreds, indeed thousands, of jobs destroyed in Queensland over the years and into the future. Of all the states in Australia, none has a greater need of predictability and certainty when it comes to mining and pastoral titles and none has a greater stake in the proper resolution of this issue. What the Labor Party has done is to betray the interests of Queensland by opposing this legislation, and what Peter Beattie has done is to pathetically say, `I know in my heart the coalition is right, but I am not strong enough to stand up for Queensland.' He does not deserve to be the Premier of Queensland.41294129Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a report in yesterday's Australian that the Liberal Party is offering advertising agencies a blank cheque to rename and sell the GST? Prime minister, why did you attempt on the John Laws program this morning to slide away from the GST when you said, `I won't be selling a GST'? Why don't you want to call a GST a GST and sell it as a GST? What are you afraid of? Is it because, as one advertising executive said yesterday, `The GST has a loser's connotation about it'?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the government will remain silent.4129Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I don't mind, Mr Speaker. Please don't rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—They go very close. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have two answers for that. The first answer is that, when it comes to government advertising, my reply to the Australian Labor Party is `Bill Hunter'. That is what I say in reply to government advertising. Of course, any new program that a government has is entitled to an appropriate communication of the details. The Australian Labor Party, when they were in government, adhered to that practice. We observed them adhering to that practice and we observed, with great interest, the extent to which they adhered to that practice.As to the second part of the question in which the honourable member said that I will not be selling a GST, that is typical of what the Labor Party does on this issue. You deliberately chopped out the rest of what I said. What I said was that I would be selling an aggregate package. What I said was that I would be selling a total reform of the Australian tax system. I will be selling reductions in personal income tax. I will be selling a tax system that boosts Australia's competitiveness. I will be selling a tax system that attacks the loss of $15 billion of revenue through the black economy. I will be selling a tax system that takes the load off the backs of Australian exporters. In other words, I will be selling as the head of a government which is proudly determined to improve the efficiencies of the Australian tax system a proposal that will take this nation positively into the 21st century. I will not be peddling backward-looking fear. I will not be running a negative campaign, a destructive campaign, a campaign being run by people who in their hearts say, `No, it is in Australia's interest to reform the taxation system.'The man who sits opposite me, the Leader of the Opposition, knows that reform of the Australian taxation system is needed. When he was in government, he had the courage in 1985 to support the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, on this subject. He knows that reform is needed and by opposing it, by being negative, he is gutlessly selling out Australia's national interest.41294129Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of reports of a growth in the number of people seeking to enter Australia illegally through our airports? Can the minister inform the House what measures have been taken to reduce this threat?4129Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I have seen the reports in today's newspapers about this matter. There was, of course, nothing new in the information provided in that article. In fact, it was based on information that I have publicly used myself on a number of occasions. It is a fact that, worldwide, we are seeing a significant movement of people occurring, essentially seeking either guest worker status or a long-term immigration outcome, but not approaching governments with a view to achieving that result lawfully. Many people are involved in the process of finding ways and means to circumvent the lawful arrangements that are in place for entry of people.We have seen a situation where, over a period of time, the International Convention for the Protection of Refugees has been used by people intent on claiming that they have an entitlement to asylum whether or not they have such an entitlement. We have seen a situation where Australia has been challenged in relation to those matters by large numbers of boat arrivals, and those issues have had to be effectively addressed by this government. At the moment in the Port Hedland Detention Centre we have something in the order of 30 people. This is very different to the 500 or so that we had a number of years ago. One of the reasons that that has occurred is because there has been a determination to return non-bona fide people and a determination to use, as part of an integrated system, a system whereby people are detained when entering Australia clandestinely.But, having addressed those issues effectively, what we find now is that people attempt to find new ways around it. The way in which they are attempting to do that is by using fraudulent documentation. Often, they dispose of documentation when they are on aircraft seeking to enter Australia. In three years since 1994-95 we have seen an increase of 278 per cent, from 485 such arrivals to something of the order of 1,350. Those with bogus travel documents are projected to increase significantly this year. Those issues need to be addressed effectively. In the recent budget we brought forward a number of proposals to do that. We are going to place additional compliance officers in overseas posts where we believe these issues arise, where there is a high incidence of malpractice, and that includes Jakarta, Guangzhou, and another centre on which I have yet to make a decision. That complements the staff already in Beirut, Beijing, Hong Kong and Manila. Additionally, we will put airline liaison officers in a number of places, increasing from two to four Australian officers who will assist airline staff in identifying people using bogus documentation before they get on aircraft. Further, we will put additional staff in our airports here in Australia. We will strengthen the totality of the regime to deal with these matters, including the provision of resources to deal with asylum claims, to get asylum claimants out of the system, and to put in place a new detention centre in Sydney as part of the overall framework to ensure that these issues are effectively addressed.41304130Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that a 10 per cent GST would mean a new slug on job seekers of $3.70 a week for travelling to interviews, $40 for work clothes—UNKNOWNA government memberA government member—Ha, ha!LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—And it might be a joke to the well heeled on the other side of the House—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will ask his question.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—And $1.20 a week for dry-cleaning, and $17.50 a semester for new textbooks while they learn new skills.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. I ask the honourable member to recommence his question. It is quite impossible to hear.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Does the Prime Minister agree that a 10 per cent GST would mean a new slug on job seekers of $3.70 a week for travelling to interviews, $40 for new work clothes, $1 a week for dry-cleaning, and $17.50 a semester for new textbooks while they learn new skills? Why does the Prime Minister want to slug job seekers in this way?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to standing order 144, specifically referring to hypotheticals. In this case, the member for Batman has used a number of assumptions which we are not aware of in his question in order to come up with the prices he has come up with. Therefore, given that, and given the 10 per cent that he referred to, it is clearly in breach of standing order 144, and I ask you to rule it out of order.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I am more than willing to go through in detail the report by me going to the question before the chair. It is based on Broadmeadows in Melbourne, and includes Woolies at Broadmeadows.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is in order.4131Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am grateful for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Can I just say, in reply to the member for Batman, that he has put a whole lot of hypothetical assumptions which I do not care to respond to. What I do intend to say is that what he has put today is all of a piece with the attitude of the Labor Party to the issue of tax reform. The most damning criticism you can make of Labor is they know what is right for Australia but won't do it. The most damning criticism you can make of the Leader of the Opposition is that you in your heart, Kim Beazley, know Australia needs tax reform. You once were man enough, you once had the intellectual honesty, to support it. You once stood shoulder to shoulder with Paul Keating when he courageously argued for it before he lost his courage and became expedient in the early 1990s. At a time when Australia needs tax reform, at a time when the national interest requires that political leaders have the courage to embrace reform, what you are prepared to do is to authorise an insubstantial, scurrilous scare campaign.It may cheer your hearts at question time, you may gather in your caucus conclave and slap each other on the back and say, `Wasn't that clever?', but I suspect that out there on the highways and byways of Australia what they are really saying is, `Hang on, this is a bit strange. Wasn't there a time when Kim Beazley and Paul Keating told us that this was a good idea? Isn't it a bit strange that a man who was prepared to say one thing before the 1993 election and do the complete opposite should now be taking this stand?'EK6JEANESMs Jeanes—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to standing order 303. I am mindful of the fact that there have been hundreds of school children coming through the gallery this week and surely, as members of this House and leaders of the nation, we deserve to offer them a better example.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And a better Prime Minister!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks!EK6JEANESMs Jeanes—I use the member for Banks as a prime example of why we need to offer them a better example. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will address her point of order and not engage in chat across the chamber. Members on both sides of the House are transgressing, and I suggest that everybody recognise the significance of this federal parliament and treats it with proper propriety.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The worst criticism, the most damning indictment of all that can be made of the Leader of the Opposition of the Australian Labor Party, is that they know what is right for Australia but will not do it. They know that it is in Australia's interest to reform the tax system. They know that the scurrilous fear campaign they are trying to mount is inimical to Australia's national interest. I believe that as the weeks go by there will be a greater realisation of that amongst the men and women of Australia, and they will, in political terms, rue the day that they put short-term expediency and political dishonesty ahead of Australia's national interest.41314131Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister seen reports of new published work on the former government's approach to immigration and multicultural affairs? If so, what has the government done to address the identified abuses and policy failings identified in those reports?K26LATHAMMr Latham—Oh, Phillip, you are not going to support Paul Sheehan, are you?4131Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question to me. There have been a number of publications this week which I will draw to the attention of honourable members. One very important document published by my department on the economic impact of changes in the migration program between 1995-96 and 1997-98 is a report commissioned from Ecnotech. It is a very important statement about the economic advantages to Australia as a result of changes that have taken place in relation to the immigration program. By way of interjection, some members asked me whether I was going to refer to a book entitled Among the Barbarians by Paul Sheehan.K26LATHAMMr Latham—You have it there! You know about it.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, I am aware of the published book. I intend to read all of it. Others may care to interest themselves in that matter, but I only wish to draw on one quote from the president of the Labor Party that I understand was included in the book. It was a comment offered by the member for Lalor when he spoke at a conference in northern Sydney dealing with migration. He had this to say:The handling of immigration by the previous government was, I have to say, less than distinguished, partly because immigration was seen as a tremendously important element in building up a long-term political constituency.Let me say in relation to that that it confirms, I think in a very graphic way, what I have been saying about the way in which the immigration program which we inherited was seriously out of balance—where 70 per cent of the migration program was represented in the family stream; where something in the order of 40 per cent of the program was spouse and fiance categories, amounting to some 33,500 places; and where parents represented 10 per cent of the program. We have addressed that imbalance. The family stream now represents about 50 per cent of the program. How have we done that? We have done that by dealing with a problem that you allowed to remain in the immigration program, where people who were entering into arranged and sham marriages—LN6HATTONMr Hatton—That is false, and you know it. 0J4Mr RUDDOCK—It is absolutely right. We have seen a situation now where the number of applications are down by 30 per cent since changes were implemented to deal with these matters—not the rejection rates but the numbers of people coming forward and saying, `I want to have my relationship tested against reasonable criteria.'KP6DARGAVELMr Dargavel—Why are you kicking people out who are already married?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will remain silent!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—But again we have seen a situation in which—KP6DARGAVELMr Dargavel—They are not sham marriages.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fraser!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—There has been a very effective redressing of the way in which people with skills are able to enter Australia, and we have an effective rebalancing of the program. That has been confirmed in the study that I have referred to. I would like to perhaps table the study at the end of this answer and encourage members to read it as well, but it shows that Australians generally have benefited by an increase in their standard of living by $95 per year for each and every Australian, and that if we are able to introduce the further changes that we have in mind in relation to the skills categories it will add another $39 per person. That has been achieved with marginal reduced population growth, with a younger population, because of the capping of the parents category, with a higher underlying labour force participation rate, and a higher skill level in the work force.One would have to wonder when those benefits are there why the Leader of the Opposition when he comes to speak on these matters, as he did when he spoke to the Australia-Israel review, has this to say—and I have spoken about the Leader of the Opposition before and the way in which he likes to walk on both sides of the street on these matters—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will remain silent.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The Labor Party, when it is out speaking for the Australian community as a whole, would have us believe that it was concerned about very important moral and wider questions. But when it comes to going out and talking to specific constituencies it has another message to take. What it says about immigration generally is that it is interested in a population policy for Australia, implying, of course, that we should not have regular reviews of the migration program but that we ought to have a long-term view.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister's answer is getting a little long. I suggest he draw his answer to a conclusion.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I quote from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this, because there has been this criticism that our decisions in relation to immigration each year have been ad hoc and taken in the context of immediate issues. But the Leader of the Opposition, when he is asked on this matter, says:I think the annual intake is something we ought to determine on the basis of the exigencies of the economy at the time and on a non-discriminatory basis.So there he is saying that it ought to be considered on the basis of the economy in the particular year.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will wind up his answer.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I will wind up, Mr Speaker, on this point. He then had to comment on the question of whether or not the Labor Party would be changing the immigration program. What did he have to say when he was speaking to a specific constituency? Oh yes, he said he would maintain the current immigration program levels but added that the ALP would also increase the family reunion component. In other words, there they are again out there pleading to a specific constituency for the very politicisation of the immigration program that the honourable member for Lalor identified.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was going to table a paper. Do you wish to do so?0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—I certainly do, Mr Speaker. It is a very worthwhile paper.41334133Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—We are still waiting for his anti-racism campaign.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will either ask his question or resume his seat.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall whether, on the first day of the new Job Network, the Prime Minister gave this assurance on Radio 3AW, `We're not charging fees.' Is the minister aware of Huon Skills Training in Tasmania which, on top of the job matching fee it receives from the federal government, is charging extra fees directly to job seekers, many of whom are long-term unemployed? Is the minister aware that these charges include resume writing at $40 per hour, application writing at $20 per hour and career counselling at $70 per hour? Aren't these fees in breach of the Prime Minister's assurance on Radio 3AW of 1 May?4133Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The member for Batman has waged a continuing campaign of disinformation against the Job Network. The one thing we know for certain is that he has been wrong in every accusation he has made. He has used his union mates out there to try to get information about Job Network members, and every time the scurrilous statements about Job Network members have been proven to be incorrect. Let me make it absolutely clear to members of the House that the Prime Minister's statement was 100 per cent correct. There is a clear clause in the contract with every Job Network member that no member may charge any unemployed person any fee where they are providing a service for which the government is subsidising the Job Network. In other words, whatever the government pays, that service is free to job seekers.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What are you going to do about this one in Tasmania then?BT4Dr KEMP—I do not accept for a moment the facts as they are stated by the member for Batman. There is no reason, without investigation, to accept them. Let me make this point: there are many professional job placement agencies in this country who charge professional people looking for work for a job placement or job assistance. These services are not part of the services provided by the Job Network on behalf of the Commonwealth government to unemployed people.It may well be that there is an agency which is charging within the law people who are seeking services beyond those provided by the Job Network. But let me also make it quite clear that many Job Network members are providing completely free services to unemployed people who are not on unemployment allowances. In fact, I can tell the House that early indications are that some 20 per cent of the total job placements made by members of the Job Network are for people who are not carrying job seeker cards. So the Job Network is lifting enormously the opportunities for the unemployed in this country to get jobs. I am sure no member of this House will be misled by the campaign of disinformation being carried out by the ACTU and the member for Batman.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a memo from Huon Skills Training detailing these fees, together with the Prime Minister's transcript from the radio interview.Leave not granted.41344134Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—After that very good answer from the minister, my question is also addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has the minister seen comments about the government's performance in assisting young people? How has the government's work for the dole initiative and other programs increased opportunities and choices for young people?4134Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. The member for Dunkley is well known for his commitment to helping young people in his electorate expand their opportunities to get employment. The work for the dole program has been one of the pioneering breakthroughs of the Howard government. It has been a highly success ful program which has helped to build confidence and raise the self-esteem for thousands of young people who have been shut out of employment for too long—until this government took positive action to help them.That is why the government is expanding the work for the dole program. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this year, over the following 12 months the government will be providing some 25,000 places in work for the dole. The first tender round for the first six months of that additional work for the dole program has now concluded, and the government has received applications to place some 12,500 young people on the work for the dole.I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the enormous community enthusiasm for this program, which was demonstrated by the very large number of applications we received for the pilot project, has been more than fully borne out in the response to this second tender round. The government has received some 680 applications from communities and organisations around Australia to place young people in these 12,500 places. That is some three to four times the number of projects likely to be contracted in this round. It shows the enormous community support out there for the work for the dole program.I would like to remind members of the House just how work for the dole is assisting young people. Let me quote, for example, the comment of Linda Green from the Caboolture area, who has been working with the Endeavour Foundation supporting people with a disability. Linda Green said this:This scheme has been great. It has helped me with contacts in the business community and given me much more confidence. I can see a much brighter future for my career now and will be returning to study.Mr Michael Shovelton, 19, of Tugun, who is involved in a project on the Gold Coast said:It has given me a lot more motivation to go out and get a job and it has boosted my morale.The member for Dunkley has drawn my attention to propaganda being distributed in his electorate by the Labor Party. That propaganda makes two things very clear: first, that the Labor Party opposes work for the dole and would discontinue this immensely successful and popular program if it were ever to return to government; second, that Labor also proposes to discontinue the common youth allowance which will give young people the positive message that it is not in their interests to drop out of school and go on the dole.The Labor Party supports a welfare system in which young people are given an incentive to go on the dole, and it opposes communities helping those young people to rebuild their confidence. All the gains that have been made by this government would be swept away by Labor. There are now 52,000 fewer young people—teenagers—looking for work than there were when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for employment. Young people deserve a chance. Communities want to help young people, and this government will give them that opportunity.41354135Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Are you aware that, according to documents now before the courts, on 27 March Chris Corrigan told a meeting of Patrick's bankers that the federal government was `considering funding' his mass sacking strategy but that, not satisfied, the bankers sought a further meeting to confirm that government funding was available? Are you also aware that, at the following meeting on 2 April, Corrigan gained the bankers' support on the basis that `the government would pay $160 million'? Minister, how can you still say that you were not part of the conspiracy by Patrick's to sack its entire work force and replace it with another?HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This matter is clearly sub judice. I should not need to say anything more than that. This is sub judice through and through.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—While I understand the matter is before the courts and that an injunction has been issued, I am also aware that that matter has been covered in the media fairly extensively. In those circumstances, I do not believe it is of a nature or character where it is going to prejudice the position of parties before the courts. In that instance I call on the minister to reply.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Pentridge Pete!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith will remain silent.4135Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have not seen those particular documents but I have seen the press reports.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—That's where you'll be.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!WI4Mr REITH—In terms of the government's approach to redundancy, I had said in December last year that, given that there was overmanning in the industry, it was then appropriate for the government to have a redundancy policy for the shipping industry and for the stevedoring industry.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What offer did you make to Patrick's?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has asked his question.WI4Mr REITH—Therefore, it was appropriate for the government to have as a specific policy in this area of the maritime industry a position which would ensure that, in addressing the problems of overmanning, as people left the industry they would receive their full entitlements. There is no question about the government's policy. I repeated that policy in January, February and March of this year. Further to the member's question, we had discussions with shipping companies, with Patrick's and with P&O about that policy. That is our public policy. We believe in fixing up the waterfront.This is incredible. There is an application before the courts for discovery of documents. The Commonwealth will produce documents in accordance with the discovery requirements of the proper legal processes. I can advise the House that there will be literally thousands and thousands of pages of documents. Those documents will go back through the whole time of this government and further, because I can take you to papers which I had published going back to 1989 where I was arguing for a package of reforms to fix up the waterfront. As the parliament meets today, the Columbus Canada is coming back from the United States as a symbol of the public campaign by the Labor Party to provide funds to the MUA to maintain the MUA's stranglehold on the Australian economy. There is talk about there being a hearing in the Federal Court and evidence being given. When that evidence is given it will show that, when this government said we were intent on fixing up the waterfront, we actually meant it. That is what it will show. Furthermore, when there is a hearing—if there is a hearing—in the Federal Court, there will be evidence produced by this government as to what the purpose of that government policy was.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Will you bring the case on?WI4Mr REITH—And that will show that for years and years when Labor was in office they conspired with the MUA to maintain a closed shop against the interests of Australian business—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Bring it on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne.WI4Mr REITH—against the interests of Australian exporters—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Put in a submission for an urgent hearing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.WI4Mr REITH—and generally against the national economic interest. So there has been a lot of talk about what has happened. This government is proudly in favour of fixing up the waterfront. And every time I hear the saga of the Columbus Canada it will remind me of the Labor Party's support for the MUA; it will remind me of the Labor Party's policy for years and years against the national interest.41364136Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of concern from the university sector about the impact of Labor's higher education policies on the quality of educa tion? What plans does the government have to promote quality in Australian universities?4136Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. The principal objectives of the government's policies for education are to provide more opportunities for qualified young Australians to enter university and to ensure that universities are funded to provide a quality education. This year there are more domestic students on university campuses than ever before, and universities' revenues at $8.55 billion are higher than ever before.The member for Werriwa, the opposition spokesperson on education, has said very little on the topic of his portfolio, although he has given a great deal of advice to other members of his frontbench. What he has said and what the Labor Party has said has now been roundly condemned by one of Australia's leading Vice-Chancellors, Professor Alan Gilbert of Melbourne University. In a speech yesterday in Melbourne, Professor Gilbert said that Labor's policy position on universities:. . . was bereft of attention to quality, deficient and unconvincing.Again referring to Labor's policy, Professor Gilbert said:It will need to be fundamentally reconfigured or it will threaten seriously the quality of Australia's universities.That is a very clear statement by one of Australia's leading Vice-Chancellors, one of the leaders of higher education in this country, about the total failure of the Labor Party to come to grips with what is needed to provide quality university education to young Australians. Already, Labor's higher education policies have been rejected. Labor's dangerous policies on education are fooling no-one. They threaten the quality of the universities and the extra places that the universities have created.Another very significant statement was made yesterday by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, which endorsed this government's policy position of increasing the total resourcing of universities through a mixture of public and private sources, including tuition fees which this government has introduced to give Australian students the same rights that overseas students have to access the courses which form their first preference. That policy has already opened the doors to hundreds of students who would otherwise have been denied the opportunity to study the courses they wanted.The Vice-Chancellors' statement is very deliberate and very clear, and it is rejecting the Labor Party's policy on higher education to abolish those undergraduate fees and those undergraduate opportunities. That is what the Vice-Chancellors of Australia's 37 universities have said. They support the coalition's policy to provide a range of funding sources for Australian universities and they reject the policy of the Australian Labor Party. And as the Labor Party now look down that long, dark track towards another election defeat, they might well consider that the neglect that the member for Werriwa has given to university education and to education generally is now beginning to reap its inevitable consequences, that all those people in this country who care for quality education, who care to open the doors of Australia's universities to qualified young people, who want Australia's universities to be better funded, are rejecting the alternative offered by the Australian Labor Party and supporting that offered by the federal coalition.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations413715:35:004137Beazley, 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, I have about four explanations, Mr Speaker, but I will be brief.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Misrepresenting me seems to have become an art form in this parliament, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) suggested in several questions, starting with the first, that when I was minister for education in 1993 I had a secret plan to introduce a GST and that I then proceeded to do so after the 1993 election. I can assure you that as the minister for education I did not have a secret plan to introduce a GST, nor did I introduce a GST after the 1993 election. After the 1993 election, we had the wholesale sales tax system and the system relating to fuel excises. The fuel excise was put in place by Malcolm Fraser. The wholesale sales tax system was routinely raised by John Howard when he was Treasurer. The second explanation—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has explained where he has been misrepresented. He is now debating the issue, which contradicts the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He did actually say that he had four personal explanations.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—He hasn't finished the first one yet.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He has. He is onto the second one, I believe.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The second explanation concerns the Prime Minister saying, `I know in my heart that we need a GST and that we need tax reform.' I agree we need tax reform to deal with the problems associated with encouraging people from welfare to work. I know in my heart that we do not need a GST and that it will be an unfair tax.Then the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) again suggested that I support a boycott of Australian goods overseas—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You do.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—and Australian shipping. I have said repeatedly in this place and consistently that I do no such thing.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the claims that I have made do not give rise to the Leader of the Opposition being able to make a claim of being misrepresented. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party are collecting funds for the MUA and that is why he is so embarrassed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. He is now arguing the case. He will have an opportunity to make his own personal explanation should he wish to do so. The Leader of the Opposition needs, however, to address specifically only those issues where he has been misrepresented and not argue his cause. The Leader of the Opposition has completed his third case.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Finally, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) read accurately—quite accurately—from statements made by me to the Australian Israeli Review , but he then proceeded inaccurately to say that these were inconsistent with other statements I have made. I have made several speeches on this. Everything I said in the course of those particular remarks I repeated in those speeches.15:38:004138Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—In the course of today's proceedings, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said that I was involved in a sleazy deal for the Lindsay by-election. The truth is that it was a unilateral deal. I decided myself that the preference should go to the Labor Party because you simply do not give preference to a government with a massive majority in a by-election. Had there been a reversed situation, I would have given preferences against the Labor Party.He also said that the Labor Party was sleazy in giving me second preferences ahead of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party did exactly the same; they gave me preferences ahead of the Labor Party—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kalgoorlie is stretching the bounds of personal explanations, frankly. He needs to address specifically only those areas where he has been personally misrepresented. If he wishes to debate the case, there will be other opportunities to do so.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—The Prime Minister was suggesting that there was some sleazy deal involved. The fact is that both parties approached me for preferences and both parties were refused—and I will get Liberal preferences next election.15:40:004138Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—During question time, the person I accused of making a sleazy preference deal with Australians Against Further Immigration was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), not the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). The Leader of the Opposition made the sleazy deal to try to beat Jackie Kelly.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: that is exactly the point I was making. That deal was not made by the Labor Party. It was made entirely by me for the reasons I gave. However, there was a deal made with AAFI. It was made by the Prime Minister and it was made with respect to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are now going beyond the personal explanation.15:40:004138Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yesterday in the other place the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, said as follows:Last year . . . I went to Kalgoorlie, but just before we arrived there, guess who was there? Mr Beazley and Mr Smith were there and do you know what they told the miners? They said . . . they were going to support our native title amendments.The misrepresentation is the assertion that I said I would support the government's native title amendments. The visit to Kalgoorlie to which the senator referred took place in July 1997. The government's native title amendments were tabled in September 1997. I said no such thing and there is no basis whatsoever to the fallacious assertion. My attitude to the government's native title amendments is reflected by my contribution to the relevant second reading debates in October 1997, March 1998 and the Votes and Proceedings of this House.15:42:004139Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Yes, I do, in three areas.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—In yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald , it was suggested that I was going to lose preselection because of damaging reports of wife bashing. In relation to the question of losing preselection, that is totally incorrect.UNKNOWNA government memberA government member—Ha, ha!SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Somebody laughs over there. In relation to the question of wife bashing, I totally and utterly deny that defamatory statement. In relation to the other article by Greg Roberts, he said in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that the Australian Federal Police have interviewed one of my employees. That is totally incorrect.15:43:004139Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONESKH4LalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—The material from Paul Sheehan's book Among the Barbarians attributed to me, and quoted in question time by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), is a significant misrepresentation. The author at no time sought to check the accuracy of the words attributed to me and featured last Saturday in the Sydney Morning Herald and in the Financial Review on Monday. I delivered a prepared speech to a largely hostile audience of Australians for Ecologically Sustainable Population in North Sydney on 30 August 1997 and the words referred to were not in that speech—members on the government side who would like copies of the speech are very welcome to have it.However, later I answered a question in which I attempted to explain the rise of the Hanson phenomenon and the way in which Labor was exposed to unfair attack on immigration issues in the 1996 election. I commented that I thought we had been naive in not anticipating the malign nature of such attacks. The words attributed to me are a very rough paraphrase of what I said. As quoted, they completely misrepresent my position. My views on immigration expressed in the ALP's post-mortem on the 1996 election are well known. I faxed a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday protesting at their misleading coverage of my remarks, but the letter has not been published.Questions to the Speaker413941394139Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I refer to an article which appeared in the Canberra Times yesterday in which it was reported that bills issued at the public cafe in Parliament House now also include a special printed section `tax GST'. Can you please advise the House of the status of this inclusion of a `tax GST' area on these bills? Is it a trial or is it a preparation for the imposition of a GST?4139Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I assure the honourable member that I have not heard of this particular instance, but I shall pursue it and respond further to the House.41394139Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. You will be aware of the onerous conditions placed on members' travel these days and the fact that these conditions are far more onerous than those applied to public servants. Do you agree that this is not in any way in keeping with the position of this parliament? Will you look into it and see that some equality is brought to the matter?4139Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member has raised a question that is of significance to us all. Members of the public might find it hard to understand the travel demands placed on members and the problem of achieving the required transport when they need to go. Any member of parliament who travels more than necessary, frankly, must have rocks in their head. The honourable gentleman raises a very difficult issue, however, of administration. He would be aware of circumstances of public criticisms of travel, and I am sure the government is fully aware of those. Nonetheless, I do intend to look at ways in which the system cannot portray members in an inequitable light. I shall certainly have the honourable member's comments in mind as I do so.Miscellaneous414010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present information on travelling allowance payments to members of the House of Representatives for the period 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997. I also present information on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association travel by members and senators for the period 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997.Auditor-General's Reports414010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 1997-98: No. 45—Performance audit—Planning for rural health—Department of Health and Family Services and No. 46—Financial control and administration audit—Internal audit .Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's auditreports Nos 45 and 46 of 1997-98; and(2) the reports be printed.Documents41404140Reith, 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—Department of Finance and Administration—Parliamentarians' travel paid by the department for the period July to December 1997, May 1998.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Papua New Guinea update— Report of proceedings of a seminar 11 and 12 November 1996, Canberra, February 1997—Government response.University of Canberra Act—Council of the University of Canberra—Report for period 1 January to 30 November 1997.4140Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Support for the government's objective of meaningful waterfront from the member for Mitchell—912 petitionersOpposition to the closure of the Defence Force training facility at Fort Queenscliff from the member for Barker—2132 petitionersOpposition to the relocation of the Caboolture Town Centre Medicare Office and request for it's reinstatement from the member for Longman—3459 petitionersMatters of Public Importance4140414010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) for and on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The inability of any proposed goods and services tax to enhance security and opportunity for ordinary Australians.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:48:004140Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—If I had actually had, at the time when this matter of public importance was submitted on my behalf, the statement made today by a former Prime Minister of this country, I think this particular matter would have been somewhat different. I would in fact have dealt with what is an absolutely critical statement made by a former leader of the Liberal Party in regard to this debate. But as his statement goes to integrity and as this debate on GST is going to go around integrity, I think it is worth noting just one point here. It says:Where major political parties—HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A matter of public importance relates to a specific subject. The Leader of the Opposition said if he had had a chance he would have raised a different subject. He then sought to speak, and has now proceeded to speak, on a different subject. He should be taken back to the subject of the matter of which the opposition has given notice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Finance and Administration should be aware that generally in matters of public importance a good deal of latitude has been allowed. I believe at the moment it is still introductory.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I intend to read one paragraph and relate it directly to the matter of public importance. It says:Where major political parties compromise their basic principles with a racist political party, experience more often than not has shown that the influence of the racist party has grown and in far too many cases becomes dominant. Politicians in many things are pragmatic and indeed must be. This implies an element of compromise, but there are basic beliefs, basic principles, which cannot be compromised. Opposition to racism is perhaps the most important of such principles.That is a very important principle and a very important statement, but so is the capacity in the political process for people to be believed when they give undertakings to electorates. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went to the last election saying absolutely, unequivocally, never, ever, would he introduce a GST. Indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) read out a definition from the Oxford Dictionary , from which the Prime Minister has been fond of quoting, and it says this in regard to a definition of `never':At no time. On no occasion. Not ever. As an emphatic negative. Not at all.The deviousness with which the Prime Minister has operated in so far as his proposed tax changes are concerned is absolutely given exposure by that particular definition of what terms like `never ever' mean. We are only debating these matters this week because we had the commonsense to finally drag this issue, kicking and screaming, on to the Australian political agenda two weeks ago. The government wanted it off the agenda until shortly before the election so that their undertakings, their rationale behind it, their intention to slip to the ordinary Australian the bulk of the tax burden, could pass through in the huff and bubble of an election campaign with minimum public analysis.What the Prime Minister now tries to do in support of his deviousness is to say, `When you say something like never ever and you happen to be a politician like me, you're only talking about one election; that is all that you're talking about,' and therefore this sort of deviousness now exposed is the sort of deviousness you must expect of politicians. You might give a minor degree of credence to it if he had decided 12 or 18 months ago that he would actually expose to the Australian people his thinking on this and say, `Have a couple of years to debate it; have a couple of years to debate my change of heart; have a couple of years to debate what I actually had to say.' Instead, his intention was to break that undertaking in the immediate run-up to an election, with the minimum possible opportunity for the Australian people to give it any degree of scrutiny at all.Having said that, I think it is worth pointing out one other thing, because truth is going to be important in this. The Prime Minister will go out there and say to the Australian people, `You will benefit from this proposal: the GST will not rise. You will benefit from this proposal: all the compensation measures put in place will be sustained. You will benefit from this proposal: all the income tax cuts associated with it will continue.' He will be making those solemn undertakings to the Australian people not in the context that they will disappear within the course of the next 12 months but that they will be there for the foreseeable future—for a very substantial time indeed. That is what he will be saying.A fellow who is capable of determining that `never ever' means a year or two is a person who will be regarded by many in the Australian community, when they have an opportunity to scrutinise this, as a person who will be unreliable on all the guarantees that he and his government will have to offer. But of course that `never ever' slip sliding is just of a piece of the Prime Minister's general demeanour with the public overall. Nobody out there with any commonsense at all would consider that that set of words meant anything other than that for the lifetime of that man in politics, and for the lifetime of his leadership of any political party, this would not be a matter for consideration again.There were issues before the Australian people at the last election when the Prime Minister had to say such things as `an undertaking for the next parliament'. He did that in terms of the privatisation of Telstra. In the course of the privatisation debate on Telstra, he said, `You will get an opportunity to vote for a party that will privatise one-third of it. That will be our policy for the next parliament. Before anything is determined, we will give it further consideration and then it will be put to the electorate subsequently.' I have a quarrel with the extent to which that has been honoured and in the way in which the process has been done, but I will concede it is an argument on timing. It is an argument in relation to a set of propositions when I think the overwhelming evidence will be against him, but he has a point—no more than that.Contrast whether that undertaking would be consistent with what he said about the GST. If, when asked a question on the GST, he had not said, `Never ever,' but, `For the life of the next parliament we will not have a GST if we are elected and, if there is to be a GST, there will be undertakings made subsequently to the Australian people and they will have an opportunity to vote,' that would be the equivalent of what was done with Telstra. That would be dealing honestly with the Australian people.What he sought to convey to the Australian people at the last election was this: `We will never put a GST back on the political agenda. I want to ensure that I do not suffer the political opprobrium of being fought out there in the community on whether I had at the back of my mind any reservation on that matter. I want the Australian people to believe that when I become Prime Minister of this country I will not be organising the affairs of the state, using the funding resources avail able to a government, to get them to have a policy dumped on them with which, at this point in time, I do not agree.' If he had said all that, he would have been defeated in all likelihood at the last election—or he would have suffered substantially fewer gains than he subsequently made. The Australian people were massively deceived on this by the Prime Minister. Against that deception, they must make judgment about every single undertaking he gives them on the question of fairness.If this Prime Minister were to go into the next election campaign with a little badge which said `relaxed and comfortable', the Prime Minister would be subject to a giant horse laugh, so he seeks another mantra associated with this. He knows very well that, if he wore a little badge saying `relaxed and comfortable', the result would be like that of the American Democrats in the 1932 election when FDR beat President Hoover for the presidency of the United States. The Democrat campaign badge of the 1932 election was the Republican badge of the 1928 election. It said: `To prosperity with Hoover.' In the course of our particular election campaign, our badge would read `Relaxed and comfortable with John Howard'—relaxed and comfortable with a chap who puts dogs onto the waterfront, who lies, deceives and misleads in the course of attempting to bring about change on that waterfront but producing the opposite reaction—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful with the words he is using.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—and now endangering the Australian national interest in the way in which others have chosen to react to it. If he were a person sincerely committed to being relaxed and comfortable, he would have done things differently with other unannounced performances by this government: what was done to the elderly in relation to nursing homes; what was done with the elderly in relation to their dental care; what was done to the universities, and the university students in particular, related to the affordability of education; what was done to Australian business in relation to innovation; and what has been done to the Australian unemployed in relation to putting in place a mad, ideologically driven, absurd set of propositions on employment services for the unemployed in this country. But what he could not do is go out talking about being relaxed and comfortable in that regard.What security can be sought from a Prime Minister whose undertakings cannot be believed? What stability is there in a government which will propose a GST in an environment in which already their own projections show we will be facing interest rate pressures as a result of balance of payments problems? We are going to load on top of those interest rate pressures as a result of balance of payments problems the interest rate pressures that come with price increases associated with a GST.The experience of every single country where a GST has been introduced is that the governments subsequently have had a containment of inflation problem. And every time they have had to deal with that containment of inflation problem, they have raised interest rates. If you are going to do the two things at the same time then you will have to cope with the problems that are going to emerge with inflationary pressures in our community because of a bad balance of payments situation—a balance of payments situation you have worsened because of what you have done with people's savings in relation to superannuation arrangements, because of what you have done in export enhancement for Australian business, and because of what you have done in R&D concessions for Australian businesses, all of which have contributed to your balance of payments problems, all of which have contributed to placing pressure on interest rates, as you and everybody in the markets know full well, and you are going to throw in a GST on top of that!It is part of the dissembling of our political opponents that the Labor Party opposes tax reform. We do not; we oppose unfair tax reform. That is what we oppose. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Secretary to the Treasury in what he has identified as the principal reform problem now associated with the taxation system in this country. The government does not want to talk about it in any context other than as an offset for a GST. In loading onto ordinary Australian families the burden of the tax system with a GST—taking it off business, taking it off high income earners—the government wants to hand back a bit of bracket creep, hand back a few tax concessions to low and middle income earners as part payment on what will happen to them. That is what the government believes.We believe, however, that in order to encourage people back into the work force, they must get it clean; they must get that element of tax reform clean. It must be an absolute unexpurgated benefit for them. We are proud of our record of ensuring that the worst off in our society were protected when we were in office, but a problem of poverty traps was created. It is a problem that must be dealt with, particularly when loaded onto that problem of poverty traps are all the expenses that have been imposed on families. People have been discouraged out of the work force. Low and middle income earners have seen their incomes reduced in real terms.The only way to address that is in the way we have proposed—that is, with a tax credit for low and middle income earners; a substantial tax credit to encourage them back into the work force; a substantial tax credit to encourage unemployed folk off welfare; and a substantial tax credit that will do what the taxation system is meant to do—make people interested in work and be rewarded by work; that is tax reform. That is what the Labor Party stand for. We do not stand for a dated European tax that in the Australian context is going to be inflationary, is going to be discouraging of jobs as it will come in under service areas and is going to be crushing to small business. We will not stand for that, and we will expose the deceptions practised by the Prime Minister to put such a wretched agenda back on the Australian table.16:03:004143Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—We have heard, for the past 15 minutes, 11½ minutes of histrionic attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and 3½ minutes of some discussion hardly relevant to the issue of tax. That identifies so clearly, and the Australian people will see from that contribution, that the Labor Party have no policy on taxation and no thought on how to deal with taxation. They are simply interested in seeking to get a short-term political gain, and they are not interested in the national interest.Today I had hoped to hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) an indication of some constructive comment on the taxation system as it stands now—a taxation system which for 13 years was created by the Labor Party. It was tinkered with and it was adjusted. It did not serve the Australian community; it did not serve the families of Australia; it did not serve the workers of Australia.In 1998 we have a taxation system which is on the edge of collapse. It is a direct tax program that bears down on all workers in this country. You will pay the marginal rates at 1.4 times average weekly earnings. That does not give incentive or encouragement to anybody out there in the work force today to actually go and do something in the way of overtime. It does not give incentive to be more productive. It certainly does not give incentive to invest in any business or to seek to enhance the business if you already have one.What we are seeing at that marginal rate of 47c in the dollar is a huge gap between it and the corporate tax rate of 36c in the dollar. That does not do anything other than encourage those that are in business to incorporate. They seek to avoid tax and they seek to do it legally. They cannot pay the high marginal rate that is imposed upon them as individuals, so they seek to incorporate to pay something less.In the direct taxation situation, we have a wholesale sales tax. We know Labor will tinker with that tax because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) has made that abundantly clear in the course of the past week. We see that that has a narrow base and multiple rates. Those rates range between 12 per cent and 45 per cent. Those rates are applicable only to goods. Of course, there are exemptions there that are just so out of date. For instance, it seemed appropriate in the 1930s to exempt ice from wholesale sales tax, and so it has been ex empt, it seems, ever since that time. Horseshoes were certainly a necessity—as I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware from those in your electorate—almost as much a necessity in the 1930s as tyres are to motor vehicles today. They were exempted, and they are still exempt today.I am simply saying to the House that this wholesale sales tax has a narrow base. It is applicable to some parts of the goods area and it does not apply to others. It does not serve the Australian community. It contributes an ever narrowing amount in the way of revenue to the government. This government has recognised that the tax system is not serving this country and needs a major overhaul. It needs an honest appraisal. It needs a government that has the courage and the guts to say that if our nation is to progress as it must, as it should, as we want it to, and as we will encourage it to, then we have to address the tax system.We have some pretty simple principles that underlie tax reform. Those guidelines are, firstly, that there should be no increase in the overall tax burden. Further, that any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax—something which the opposition continually avoids. The opposition always seeks to talk about a goods and services tax but it never seems to point out that, if it were to be the case, any broad based tax might just be a substitution for the current wholesale sales tax, which does nothing to help the revenue at the present time.We would seek major reductions in personal income tax. That is what we have asked the task force to look at and give us some advice on. We believe that that reduction should have special regard to the taxation treatment of families and that consideration should also be given to a broad based indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes. There is never any talk from Labor about what you might take out of the system, only what you might put into it.We believe that there ought to be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the word `compassion' is not reserved only for members on the opposition benches. We are as conscious of that as they are, and I suggest that our policies indicate that we are prepared to deliver, as we have for 2¼ years, for those less well off in our community. That would be built into what we are currently scoping through the taxation task force.We also recognise that there ought to be reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations. There is no better argument for that than the fact that the High Court said that business franchise fees cannot be collected by the states. We have this absurdity at the present time whereby, in order to ensure that the states continue to get the revenue that they have budgeted for, we are collecting those business franchise fees—the tobacco excises, the alcohol excises, the fuel excises—for the states as a result of that High Court decision and passing them on to the states.Those Commonwealth-state relations are such that there is a need to address the taxation system overall for Australians, whether it comes from the Commonwealth or the states, and to get some sort of simplicity into it, to take out the complexity which is there and which, as I have indicated, does not serve the Australian people.I go back again to what happened yesterday. A speech was given by the President of the Business Council of Australia. That speech ought to be looked at by all members opposite. That speech made a compelling and overwhelming case for tax reform in the national interest, in Australia's interest. In that speech, Mr Wallis said:Tax reform is essential if we want to improve prosperity and employment prospects in the community generally, and it is also essential for business competitiveness.I would have thought that members opposite would be interested in job creation. What we see at the present time in our tax system is a disincentive for any business to expand and create jobs. Business cannot be competitive under the current taxation system, and Mr Wallis made it clear, as I have indicated, that if we want to see prosperity in the community and job creation, we need tax reform. The sad part about all of this is that we have the duplicitous approach of those opposite with their fear campaign.As I indicated earlier this afternoon in the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came into the House at 1 a.m. when the debate was on back in 1985, threw down his papers and said to all and sundry who would listen to him, `I have not heard one compelling argument against a consumption tax.'VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I've heard a few since, though.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—That is the convenience of being in opposition, the dishonesty of saying, `Well, what I thought then doesn't matter now.' We see this all-over-the-place approach that is coming out, particularly from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.I think it is important that I take the House to the documents that were produced back then. This is what the Labor Party believed in when it issued a white paper, as a result of the decisions it took to make some changes to the tax system back in 1985—and I note that the Labor Party spent some $7 million on publications at that time to inform and to educate the Australian people on the need for tax reform. It said:Piecemeal improvements have been made to the system over the years, but the point has now been reached where fundamental reforms rather than further running repairs are called for.They acknowledged that back then. I can only say to members opposite that, if there was a need for fundamental reform in 1985 or 1986, there is a far greater need in 1998 because we have bumbled along ever since that time. We have continued to adjust it at the edges. Under a Labor government we continued to bring in taxes to meet the consumption needs of the budget. All sorts of complexity has been added to the Australian taxation system. That fundamental reform that Labor believed in back in 1985 is very much needed for Australia in 1998. As was pointed out in the white paper, the preferred approach of government:Would permit larger reductions in marginal and income tax rates across the board, as well as imposing a more significant tax burden at the consumption level on income which escapes income tax. It involves the replacement of a wholesale sales tax with a broad-based consumption tax on goods and services at a rate of 12½ per cent.That is the Labor government policy as it was in the 1980s. That is what members of the Labor Party said to the Australian people back then. The sad part about it is that they did not carry forward with major and fundamental tax reform. They fiddled at the edges. They were not able to stand up and do what was right for Australia then. Instead, they went to the Australian people and said, `Let's have a capital gains tax, let's have a fringe benefits tax, let's fiddle again with the wholesale sales tax, let's adjust it around the edges.' That has simply put an impost on Australian business and Australian workers for all that time.We would want to see, as a result of this debate, an honest and fair appraisal of the current system. That is the fundamental starting point of any debate on tax. You must go to the system that is there right now. You must be prepared to look and see if it is serving all sections of the Australian community. There is overwhelming evidence. And that evidence comes not just from the Business Council of Australia, which represents a huge number of employees in this country, it does not come from just those who are in business, it does not come from what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is fond of calling `the big end of town'; it comes in evidence day after day from ordinary Australians. There is simply no incentive to pay, to work, to do overtime, to get into business, to expand your business, because the simple fact is that when you get to $50,000 every second dollar you earn goes to the government.This government does not want to increase the overall tax burden—and I stress that point. We simply want to provide a system that is fair, a system that rewards families, a system that is less complex, a system that people can understand. We want a system that creates jobs. We want a system that encourages exports. We want a system that creates wealth for the country through those exports. We want a system that will provide that sustainable growth which this government has set Australia on the path of over the past 2¼ years. So we have before the chair, as I indicated in my opening remarks, a matter of public importance which talks about security and opportunity for ordinary Australians. All we heard for 11½ minutes from the Leader of the Opposition was a personal attack on the Prime Minister, a personal attack which I think we will continue to hear as each day goes by in the fear campaign. When you do not have a policy, when you are not prepared to face what is right for Australia, when you think there might be a political advantage in avoiding the real issues that Australians themselves want to address, you revert to the scare campaign, as you did in 1993.I can say only this, and I will continue to repeat it at every opportunity I get: no-one in the Australian public will believe anything the Labor Party say on tax. Their record, their history, shows that, whenever they talk about tax, they cannot be believed. In 1993, they were going to legislate for l-a-w tax cuts. They said to the Australian people, `If you elect us, we are going to cut your taxes.' They said, `We won't give you any new taxes,' and immediately they moved to increase the wholesale sales tax, which many commentators, not members on this side of the House, have made very clear is the goods and services tax of Labor. Those increases put a further impost on ordinary Australian families. Did they ever get the tax cuts that were promised? They certainly did not.We have to face the fact that our system of tax is in need of reform. It is in need of overhaul. It cannot be tinkered with any more. It is held together with chewing gum and string. Unless we address that, we are not serving Australia. (Time expired)16:18:004146Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—This is the week that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) confirmed that his promises have a use-by date of three years max. They are not for actual delivery; they are there to get you through an election campaign and, after that, all bets are off. The Prime Minister's spokesman certainly has the line right. He was quoted in yesterday's Australian as saying that the government:. . . will obviously go to an election with a health policy to win.Whatever happens after that is hypothetical.This is the week that, as a result of yesterday's extraordinary concession from the Prime Minister here in question time, the Prime Minister's credibility—poor, shrunken, wizened little thing that it was to start with—finally shrivelled and faded completely from sight. This is the week that the whole country stopped to chortle as it watched the Prime Minister twist, spin and writhe to escape from a trap absolutely of his own making with an election promise he obviously never meant to keep.The core and non-core man became the never ever man, the man for whom `never ever' means `three years'—`eternity', presumably, means `three and a bit'. This is the week that has confirmed, if any further proof was needed, that not only have Howard promises a three-year use-by date but the Howard government has reached its use-by date. You can survive a lot of things in politics—frontal and sideways assaults, even assaults from behind—but one thing that you can never survive in politics is ridicule; and, boy, is there a lot of ridicule around right now!All that said, we do have to stop laughing and get serious because the issues that are underlying this tax and GST debate and which have come to the surface this week are deadly serious so far as security and opportunity for ordinary Australians are concerned. What kind of tax system we have does impact very directly on what kind of revenue the government can reasonably generate, what kinds of services it can provide. It impacts on whether low and middle income households have enough disposable income not only to provide for the necessities of life but also to enjoy the comforts of life and to take advantage of some of the opportunities that life can provide.The tax system impacts on whether we can provide jobs for all who want to work. The tax system impacts on whether the business community—small as well as large—can operate effectively and competitively and contribute to the prosperity of the nation. It impacts on whether we have inflation and interest rates that are under control, not out of control. It impacts on whether we have saving rates in the community that make it possible to cope with current account problems, to reduce our reliance on foreign capital flows.We in the Labor Party do understand the need to have a tax system that not only is fair and just but does actually work in all these ways for the benefit of the country for all Australians. We do have a very clear idea about some of the present problems in the tax system that really do need attention, including the continuing scale of tax evasion and avoidance, especially through devices like Senator Parer type family trusts and through the continuing erosion of the PAYE system as a result of people who are really employees setting themselves up in various legal guises as independent contractors. There is the problem of ensuring that average weekly earners do not creep up into indefensibly high tax brackets.Above all, there is that problem which Ted Evans so articulately indicated in a statement just a few days ago, the problem that is far more important than any aspect of the indirect tax system, and that is the problem of low and middle income families losing 80c or more of every extra dollar they earn through the combined impact of the tax and social security scales—a problem that we will be addressing, as the leader has said, in a way that really does provide security and opportunity for Australian families with our proposed tax credit for working families.There are a lot of other issues going to the renovation, repair and renewal of our tax system about which we do have a genuinely open mind. What we do not have an open mind about is a GST, which we will continue to oppose in or out of office. At the heart of our objection to a GST is the sheer unfairness of it all—of increasing the tax burden on lower and middle income earners through a new, flat rate, regressive tax of 10 per cent or more on literally everything they do or buy. The winners with any flat tax rate are those at the top of the income tree; the losers are all those lower down. An extra $10 for a day at the football does mean a lot more for a process worker's family than it does for a politician's, a lawyer's or a dentist's. That is the truth of the matter.That unfairness is made much worse the higher the flat rate is. That unfairness is made worse if you have few or no exemptions, in the way that the government is proposing. For example, if it is the case that rent is not exempted, you will have a situation where lower income persons in this community, for whom rent constitutes on average something like one-third of their disposable income, will have a further tax of 10 per cent or more on that rent and will have pathetically small resources available for the necessities of life and absolutely nothing available for enjoying life's comforts and opportunities.That unfairness is made worse again if, in getting to a flax tax rate, you wind back to the same flat level of 10 per cent or so the higher differential rates that presently apply to luxury goods. That unfairness is made worse when any purported compensation package fails to fully compensate individuals—through the tax system, through the pension system or through some other way—for what they lose at the checkout counter through the GST. And no compensation system that has ever been devised or promoted has got that right for everyone.That unfairness is made worse when, as inevitably happens and as has happened in 21 out of 23 OECD countries, the tax rate leaps up and any purported compensation package fails to keep face. That unfairness is made that much worse again if the GST is used to accomplish any significant kind of tax mix shift from direct to indirect taxes with tax cuts for the rich being paid for by the poor at the checkout counter.All that is at the heart of our objections to a GST, but that is not where it stops. It extends to a lot of the other issues that have been raised now, particularly by the business community. This is the week of course that big business, through the Business Council and its coalition, made clear not only its support for a GST but it would be actively campaigning for the coalition against Labor on this issue. Well, Stan Wallis and his fellows are supporting the Libs, loving them more than loving us. Hold the front page. That is news. That is big news.This is not a campaign that spooks us. This is not a campaign that spooks us because we believe that it will take more than a multimillion dollar campaign by the top end of town to persuade ordinary Australians to trust Howard and Costello to put their hands into our pockets for a GST. But it is a campaign that we are prepared for and will answer on its own terms, and these are some of the things we will be saying about that business campaign. We will be saying, firstly, as an economic extension of the unfairness argument, that if big business is going to as a result of a GST have a lower overall indirect tax burden that can only mean that households will have a higher burden. There are only two tax paying sectors in the economy—that is, business and households—and if you assume, as everybody does, that there is not going to be any reduction in the tax take in this area then this is a zero sum gain in which business benefits and households lose.There are of course circumstances in which what is good for business is good for the wider community. Henry Ford had something to say about that some years ago. But there are limits to that and you cannot reasonably expect battling families to be very happy about paying at the checkout counter for huge executive salaries and massive increases in shareholder profits.What big business thinks maybe is in its interest is not again—and this is the second thing we will be saying—in the interests at all of small business. When there are now going to be one million small businesses—not 75,000—applying and implementing this system, when the compliance cost for those small businesses is going to be relatively about 30 times more burdensome than it is for big business, as the OECD has told us, and when it is going to cost on average about $7,000 a year to start up and run the system for small business, you have a situation where small business is very clear indeed where the competitive advantage lies with the introduction of a GST.The third thing we will be saying, and this is very important, is that we will be question ing whether a GST really is on any view in any context in the interests of big business at all. We will be saying that for these reasons. On all available evidence, there is no evidence at all anywhere in the world that a GST does actually contribute to overall activity and job creation. That is amply clear in the services sector. How does it help business to have a tax on families which reduces their disposable income and stops them buying? That should be amply clear. There is no evidence that a GST helps private savings, and Ted Evans blew the whistle on that.Above all, there is the overwhelming evidence, and we heard it again from New Zealand today, of the Viagra effect of a GST on inflation and interest rates. You cannot get a better demonstration of the Viagra effect than in New Zealand where up, up, up went inflation by eight per cent and up, up, up went interest rates by 10 per cent. Not only that, it stayed up there with interest rates, and it was only about a year later that it started to come down again to about 19 per cent.The truth of the matter is that a GST equals higher prices, equals interest rates. A GST is not inevitable. It does not have to happen. It is in nobody's interest—business or anyone else in the community—and we in the Labor Party will do absolutely nothing in or out of office to make it happen. (Time expired)16:28:004149McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) would know all about reaching record heights when his government gave us record unemployment of 11½ per cent and record interest rates of 22 per cent. He knows all about scaling the heights of Niagara Falls, Mount Everest or the like, all to the detriment of the Australian people.I have to say that it is pretty hard to take this MPI very seriously when the opposition itself does not take it very seriously. After all, the opening words of the proposer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), were that he would rather have another MPI before us today—namely, to discuss some quote from a former Prime Minister who was only reiterating everything he had said several times previously. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition just wanted to use what was more politically opportunistic for him. He is no more serious about this MPI on tax than he would be about an MPI on the words of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser referring to the allocation of preferences. But it did allow him to cloak himself in a sanctimonious manner.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, could I take a point of order. It goes to a question of relevance. If the member wants to debate One Nation, he should inform the House and put them last in his electorate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It allowed the Leader of the Opposition to speak about deviousness and integrity and the like, but he failed to answer his own deviousness and that of his party in regard to the Lindsay by-election of 1996 when a grubby underhand deal was done to try to win over the People Against Further Immigration preferences. No, there has never been any disowning of that, has there? Instead, there was a wink and a nod, even outright encouragement, for it to go.Moreover, what about the 1996 election when the Labor Party put the former ALP member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell, ahead of the Liberal Party in its preferences? They are hypocritical, and their double standards are quite obvious. And now we have heard in question time that the current President of the ALP has admitted—and his personal explanation did little to disown his quoted words—that the Labor Party used immigration policy to curry political favour.But that is all part of the scare campaign. It does not matter whether it is in regard to race, immigration or—now—taxation, the Labor Party is a party of scare. Who can forget their tactics in 1993? All of us who went through that know about the outright lies, the deceptions, the exaggerations and, moreover, the forgery of those Telstra payment bills which were used to scare pensioners. They were out-and-out forgeries that were circulating in a number of electorates. Quite frankly, the cat is out of the bag.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition at least made a calm attempt to debate the issues today without the soaring rhetoric and exaggerations and deceptions of the Leader of the Opposition—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—That's unusual for him.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It is unusual for him, as I am reminded, for he said in a doorstop today that, after the 1993 election—when the great deception occurred—when Paul Keating was returned to power he immediately increased taxation and abandoned the promised, and indeed legislated for, personal income tax.LN6HATTONMr Hatton—The first tranche was paid early.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Yes, that is right—a first and second tranche. The second tranche was going to be delivered in year 18 or year 19 of a Labor government. The first tranche was abandoned and the second tranche was delayed until the year 2000 or something. It is like the superannuation benefit—you would get it in 2047.This morning we had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition make an admission, after being asked this by Matt Peacock:But taxation revenue grew by 14 per cent during that time—after the 1993 election—because of the wholesale tax increases.I mean, if it's not a GST—What is a GST? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:Yes, it was a significant increase in the rate of tax imposed on goods and that hasn't been denied or contested.It has been denied and contested for so long as I have sat in this parliament since the increases were introduced in the August 1993 budget! So, thank you, Deputy Leader of the Opposition: you now admit to a 14 per cent increase in indirect taxation whilst you were in power. So the deception that the Leader of the Opposition tried to introduce into this debate lies with his own party, not with the government. We are open and above board and transparent in this process, unlike the opposition. After all, how can we believe the Labor Party? People believed them back in 1993—firstly, that the GST proposed then would be detrimental; secondly, that they would not increase any indirect taxation; and, thirdly, that they would get personal income tax cuts.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is such an inexhaustible mine of material for us. I have a transcript from 25 May when he was asked by a journalist, again at a doorstop—get him away from doorstops, for heaven's sake—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—No, leave him there.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I am sorry; leave him there for our purposes, but, for your own, take off his beard or do something to disguise his appearance so he will not attract the attention of journalists. On 25 May, he was asked by a journalist:So you couldn't rule out new taxes and charges to fund it?And Mr Evans replied:It's not so much a matter of new taxes and charges, it's a matter of doing better things so far as minimisation and avoidance are concerned, and perhaps a little bit of re-arrangement or broadening of tax scales elsewhere.Again he has revealed the hidden agenda of the Labor Party. It is actually to increase taxation—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—As it always is.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—As it always is. I will repeat his words:. . . perhaps a little bit of re-arrangement or broadening of tax scales elsewhere.Today the Acting Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) said that the coalition parties are not about increasing taxation. Instead, they are about reform.Is anybody in the opposition truly and honestly going to tell us that the tax system does not need reform, that wholesale sales taxes with seven different rates—zero per cent, 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 45 per cent—are acceptable and that they do not impact on low income earners and those least able to afford it? Can they really say that when you tax toothpaste but not toothbrushes the system is rational or efficient? Of course they cannot. They told us themselves—in their publicity when they had the resources of government back in 1985—that they undertook a journey of tax reform, only to see the wheels fall off the cart in a deal done between the ACTU and then Prime Minister Hawke down at the motel in Northbourne Avenue.Even before then, they were saying in their published and distributed material that it had become a vicious circle: tax rates rise, more people opt out, and then tax rates have to rise again. The system is riddled with inefficiency and unfairness and is now beyond further patching up. If that is your criteria for tax reform, we have reached that point again. Next year, unless changes are made, average wage earners will be paying 43c of tax on every additional dollar they earn. By the year 2000, average wage earners will be paying 47c in the dollar.Of course the taxation system needs reform. That is obvious, and it can be done in a fair, rational and efficient manner. But that is typical of the Labor Party. They always deny the need for reform. When pressed and in a corner where they cannot escape, they say, `We were going to do the reform in another term of a Labor government.' They denied reform in regard to the waterfront, in regard to industrial relations, in regard to foreign debt, in regard to the budget deficit, in regard to a whole range of macro-economic and micro-economic policies.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—And you can't trust them with money.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—You certainly cannot trust them with money. The Labor Party is trying to deny the obvious. The Australian people will approach this debate, I believe, in a calm and rational way and endorse, firstly, the overwhelming, desperate and unavoidable need for taxation reform and, moreover, the government's genuine, honest and open attempt to provide that necessary reform.16:38:004151Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I am drawn to partake in this debate because of the ignorant and facile contribution of the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). It is quite clear that while the government said it wants wide-ranging tax reform and wide-ranging debate it really does not; it wants a GST. It is quite clear that you have to broaden the tax base. There are lots of things you can do to do that. You can get more people working. That will broaden the tax base. You can get multinationals to pay tax. That will broaden the tax base.I put forward the concept of a debit tax and asked for it to be looked at. So far all the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) can do is make snide remarks about it. He will not table any criticism, because all I have seen so far can be easily refuted. I have seen a paper circulated by the member for Fadden (Mr Jull). Quite frankly, it is so obviously flawed that I believe we ought to have on the table all the information so that the people of Australia can make a decision.During his ranting discourse, the member for Gippsland mentioned sleazy deals. I will tell the member for Gippsland about a deal done with AAFI by the Prime Minister. This occurred when Lenore Taylor from the Australian phoned Denis McCormack of Australians Against Further Immigration and asked, `What are you going to do with your preferences?' Mr McCormack responded, `I can tell you now that if the Liberal Party puts the Labor Party above us on the Senate ticket we will go out and campaign in Bennelong against John Howard, who has a small margin.' Denis McCormack told Lenore Taylor, `You publish that in your paper and we will see what results we get.'It is a matter of history that when the results came out the Liberal Party put AAFI above the Labor Party on the Senate ticket. That is a matter of history, about which there is no argument, and of course it was for that reason. Despite my personal explanation today, the member for Gippsland continued to assert that the Labor Party was involved in the decision to give AAFI preferences in the Lindsay by-election. The Labor Party had nothing to do with it at all. I made a unilateral decision on the basis that here was a government with a massive majority putting forward some policies which I thought were pretty suss and, as a matter of political commonsense, you do not give a government with a massive majority preferences in a by-election. Had that government been formed by the Labor Party I would have done exactly the same thing: I would have given preferences to the Liberal Party under those conditions.In respect of Kalgoorlie—shock, horror!—the Labor Party gave me preferences before the Liberal Party, but then the Liberal Party gave me preferences before the Labor Party. The truth is that both parties approached me for preferences, and both parties threatened me that if I did not give them preferences they would give the opposition a position above me. I said, `There is no deal. You will give me preferences, and I am not going to distribute preferences.' That was the position I kept. I said, `Go ahead and do that because your voters will not follow your cart if you do that.'I know that in this upcoming election the left wing of the Labor Party approached the Liberal Party to do a preference deal in respect of the member for Moore (Mr Filing) and the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) to try to get rid of them. The idea was that Labor would give them preferences in those seats in return for the Liberal Party giving preference to Labor in Kalgoorlie. It is to the credit of the commonsense of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party that they both rejected that idea, but it does show to some extent the mentality of the Left of the Labor Party. They have not changed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I think the chair has been very generous with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in allowing him to rebut some of the comments that the honourable member for Gippsland has made, but I think you should get back to the point of the matter of public importance.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with you, and I do thank you for the opportunity. In respect of taxation, remember that the GST was called a GST because when it was first introduced as a VAT in Europe it was very unpopular. We saw it introduced in Canada and it devastated the government. VAT became a bad word, so we had to have a new word—GST. The truth is that it is not a genuine goods and services tax because that can be applied only once; it is clearly a VAT, a value added tax.The complexity of value added tax is that it is moneys paid and refunded all the way up and down the chain. The consequence for small business is that this is an enormous impost, and small business becomes a tax collector for the government. Big business does not care because if it pays tax at all it is paid through its software, but small business is forced to spend an enormous amount of its time being a tax collector for the government. A government that purports to support small business is going to thrust this enormous and onerous burden upon them. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It has occurred everywhere else.The Prime Minister has said that he will not raise a GST. Of course Australia can rest easy because we have the Prime Minister's word on this! But in every other country in the world, with perhaps one or two exceptions, where a GST has been introduced it has risen. In every one of those countries the total government tax take has increased beyond what it was before the introduction of a GST, and of course that will happen in Australia. It is clear that we want tax reform because tax is optional for large companies. This was brought home to me recently by the head of the FIRB. I was lobbying for an Australian company that wanted to buy a share in the CRA smelter at Port Kembla, but the government made a decision to let it go to the Japanese. When I questioned the FIRB I was told, `You know the score, Mr Campbell. For the last 25 years government preferred foreign capital.' Then he went on unsolicited to say, `The problem with that, Mr Campbell, is that when these companies become more than 50 per cent foreign owned they do not pay any tax.' Do not tell me that that cannot be addressed without a GST. Of course it can.There are other taxes being proposed. The two per cent tax, which is a genuine GST tax, should be looked at. It is well documented. It is certainly much simpler than the government's proposition and it should be looked at. In this House the Treasurer (Mr Costello) said, `All options are open. Everything's on the table. We want a full and wide-ranging discussion.' But the Treasurer—and I have stat decs to this effect—actually told this committee not to accept any submissions at all on the debit tax. They do not want to know. I asked the Treasurer in this House if he had misled the House and he said no. But, quite clearly, on the evidence, he did mislead the House, because he said he wanted full, frank and wide-ranging discussion with all options open.What I say about the debit tax is that, even if it does not work, it should be put on the table. We have people who know enough to know whether the assertions being put forward are true or false. If this tax can work, if it cannot be debunked, then clearly it has merit in its simplicity. I believe, contrary to the information being put around, that it is probably the only tax that cannot be defeated by the multinationals, because you simply cannot shovel bags of money down the Internet. People say that they will take their money offshore. The minute they take their money offshore they have to pay tax on it. If they want to take it offshore, for example, to Vanuatu to avoid a 0.3c in the dollar tax to pay a two per cent tax, good luck to them, but it does not make much sense or show much logic to assert that this is going to be the case. It is also quite evident that, in most cases, because this tax is so small, bank interest is going to be more than the tax and bank interest will not be taxed. That is another reason why people are not going to rush to take their money out of the bank and put it in their pillowcase. If they do take it out of the bank and put it in their pillowcase, it does not really avoid the tax. They have to pay the tax even when they put it in their pillowcase. If they pay in cash, those people are going to panic and they are going to take it out of their bank at some stage and they are going to pay tax then. A debit tax taxes the velocity of money and it gets those very people that are not paying tax now. There are of course some downsides to it. I suspect the foreign exchange market will be hit because those people trade on very small margins. Does anyone seriously believe that the foreign exchange market does anything for us or for Malaysia where it totally destabilised that currency? I would not mind if that industry stopped at all, but if it did there would not be any tax base there, so you would have to look at those margins. I suspect that the Taxation Office knows the answers to those questions. I think the government has a responsibility to make that information available to the people of Australia so we can make informed choices. The fact that the government is not prepared to do that simply shows that the Prime Minister does not trust the people of Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills4153r4924153Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4153Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4153r5104153Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4153Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4153r5124153Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4154Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4154r5244154Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4154Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4154r5254154Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4154Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4154r5264154Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4154Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4154r5004154Schedule 2, item 3.Consideration resumed.16:52:004154Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Earlier today when we were discussing the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 , we raised some concerns about class action for restrictive trade practices. When the ALP responded to the Reid report, we took the intent of the recommendations of the report in good faith—that the provisions relative to restrictive trade practices, according to the fair trading report, would assist small business. Yet the government played a pick and choose game when they responded to the fair trading report refusing, for example, to implement the key component—a national uniform retail tenancy code. In fact, a class action by small business would have been made a whole lot easier if the uniform retail tenancy code had been introduced. But the government chose to ignore its own backbench recommendations about a national approach to systematically assisting small business. Labor sought to implement the recommendations of the report in its entirety, including the uniform retail tenancy code, but the government voted against the ALP amendments.The Reid report did not make any formal representations about retrospectivity. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, has never mentioned retrospectivity in any speeches to the parliament. The Howard government and Professor Allan Fels have now displayed their own devious intentions for the restrictive practices provision, something that the ALP and the committee members of the fair trading inquiry could not have possibly foreseen.At no time in the committee hearings and during the whole inquiry was the possibility raised that the ACCC could use this class action provision to attack the legitimate actions of the MUA. Nobody could have foreseen throughout the discussions and deliberations of the fair trading inquiry the machiavellian and underhanded intentions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business in using this class action to attack the MUA. The underhandedness of this provision is compounded when you realise that the government's failure to implement the uniform retail tenancy code makes it almost impossible for small business in most states in Australia to organise themselves into a collective force when negotiating with recalcitrant landlords. It is not until the uniform retail tenancy code is in place that this could be achieved.16:55:004155Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Earlier in this debate on item 3, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) mentioned amongst other things its implications for retrospectivity. A reading of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 before us shows that schedule 2, item 3 reads:3 Subsection 87(1B)After "Part", insert "IV,".It is a companion piece to item 5 in the schedule, which reads:5 ApplicationSubsection 87(1B) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as amended by item 3 applies to conduct in contravention of a provision of Part IV whether engaged in before or after the commencement of that item.So they are very much interwoven. For that reason, I foreshadow that when item 5 comes up for discussion I will move an amendment which has been circulated in my name. As the member for Hotham said in his speech on item 3, the item we are now considering, he had great objection to retrospectivity as it appears in these two provisions combined.I, along with the coalition before it assumed government apparently, have a committed objection to retrospectivity which imposes a burden on any part of the community. I have maintained that position over the years sometimes to the detriment of my career. Unfortunately, it has involved crossing the floor occasionally, and leaders of political parties do not like that. As I say, I do not think it has helped my advancement through the ranks on different occasions.8I4MARTINMr Martin—I don't know; you're still here.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—I am still here but humble, as always. I am conscientiously opposed to retrospectivity in all its forms where it imposes a burden on a section of the community—whether it be taxpayers, consumers or potential litigants—as is anticipated by the inclusion of the words in part IV under schedule 2, item 3 of this bill.I would enjoin the government to abandon those words which make retrospective application of these conditions inevitable. I know that, in part, the defence of the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) will be that that has always applied. I heard him say that, I think, when he was summing up on the second reading debate but certainly earlier in this debate. It is no defence that, because some retrospective provision was included in the bill, it should remain there. It may very well be that it is included in the bill because of some action of its predecessor, perhaps one of the Labor administrations. I am sure we would have objected to that at the time, had we detected it in opposition. I say `we' because I was then a member of the coalition in opposition. It is not an acceptable defence, in my opinion, to reject the amendment that I now foreshadow and which has been circulated in my name.Let me say this too before I sit down: it is an outrage that one speaker on either side has been contrived by the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), and the Chief Government Whip, the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) to speak on what is a very important piece of consumer legislation. I am outraged once again because I have prepared some very significant words which I believe would have contributed to the debate and which would have been—to the extent they contained criticisms—constructive.It is a matter of great offence to me that governments contrive to force their legislation through the House of Representatives, and in particular when they do so in the knowledge it is going to be held up in the Senate anyway for one of the very reasons that I now advance in the aforementioned amendment, which is that it has retrospective application which imposes a quite unacceptable burden on a section or sections of our community. If we continue to let the Senate do our work, we will become increasingly irrelevant. And that is to the advantage of executive government and not to this House or to this parliament.17:00:004156Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I was speaking on this item when debate was interrupted for question time, so I was not able to make the points I wanted to make to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) in relation to the Australian Made 50 per cent labelling in this Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . The member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) is absolutely correct: we have not had the opportunity to discuss tremendously important aspects of this bill.The minister should keep in mind that while the situation may be fair enough when it comes to manufactured products, when it comes to food products and when you take into account the costs of everything involved—including production, packaging and what have you—and it is 50 per cent of that total cost that is going to be involved, you could end up with what is basically a foreign food product actually passing the 50 per cent barrier and ending up being labelled Made in Australia.The minister knows that he should have consulted with the opposition and with other members, such as the member for Curtin, about the specifics of this matter. It is a very serious question. I give notice to you, Minister, that this matter will be examined by the Senate committee and by the Senate itself and, if necessary, we will move amendments to fix up this issue with respect to food.17:02:004156O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I make a couple of quick comments. I share the observations made by a number of members that it is ridiculous that a bill of this significance has found itself in the parliament now being compressed in this form. As the opposition's spokesman on matters related to primary industry, the farm sector, and the food sector, and as the member of parliament who initiated the Australian Made campaign in the first place in the mid-1980s, I point out that this whole issue has reached a point now where consumers must have a label they can trust.This Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 does not solve the problem. The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) thinks it does, but it does not. The minister is going to find that no sooner is his legislation through than we will have any number of manufacturers out there using Made in Australia or Australian Made or something along those lines, and the pork producers, or the citrus producers, or the strawberry producers, or whoever, will be saying, `Look, sure, Product of Australia covers this, but Australian Made does not. It is not our product; it is not our component in there, and yet it is being labelled all over the supermarkets as Australian made.' That is just one of the issues we have still got to thrash out.I give the minister notice—as the speaker before me, the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), said—that there are so many loopholes in this legislation that it will finish up under intense scrutiny within the Senate, and we certainly reserve the right to tidy up the problems we can see.I reiterate the undertakings that I gave to the pork producers protest meeting in central Victoria last week. Labor will give passage to this bill, because we think it is an outrage that the government dumped the Australian Made campaign in 1996, and we think it is an outrage that it has taken them two years to come back with it now. We will give passage to this bill because it has to go through, but we reserve the right to make the changes we think are necessary in the Senate. Question put: That the item be agreed to.17:08:00The House divided. 0Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andren, P. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Mutch, S. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* 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.0Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.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. 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.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.* Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.Costello, P. H. McLeay, L. B.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Willis, R.Sullivan, K. J. Bevis, A. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Grace, E. L.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Schedule 2, item 4 agreed to.Schedule 2, item 5.17:12:004157Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I move:Schedule 2, item 5, page 11, (lines 27-29) omit:as amended by item 3 applies to conduct in contravention of a provision of Part IV whether engaged in before or after the commencement of that itemsubstitute:as amended by item 3 applies to conduct in contravention of a provision of Part IV engaged in after the commencement of that itemThis amendment eliminates the retrospective application of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act and, in particular, part IV of the proposed act. For almost the 13 years that the coalition was in opposition it eschewed any form of retrospectivity which imposed a burden on a section or sections of the community. It seems to be, now that it has a golden opportunity to carry that forward into government, that we have the situation where people can be imposed upon tomorrow for doing something they did yesterday; in other words, they have not had any opportunity to modify their behaviour.The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) indicated in his summing up in the second reading debate that the defence of the government, in effect, is that retrospectivity has always been in this clause, that is, it has always been in the Trade Practices Act 1974; or indeed, if it has not always been in there, it has been in there for some time. Surely that is no defence—two wrongs do not make a right. If it was put there by a previous Labor administration, I would have thought that would be another reason why the minister might exercise some common sense and accept my amendment. I commend my amendment to the House. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Rocher's ) be agreed to.17:18:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)47Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Campbell, G.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Rocher, A. C.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, A. C. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McLachlan, I. M. Mutch, S. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *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.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Bevis, A. R. Sullivan, K. J.Grace, E. L. Costello, P. H.McLeay, L. B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Willis, R. Moore, J. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the item be agreed to.17:24:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Mutch, S. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *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.46Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Campbell, G.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Rocher, A. C.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilton, G. S.Costello, P. H. McLeay, L. B.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Willis, R.Sullivan, K. J. Bevis, A. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Grace, E. L.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Remainder of the bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.4159Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment4159Motion (by Mr Truss) put:That the House do now adjourn.A division having been called and the bells being rung—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, is it the proper use of the practices of the House for the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs to move a motion and to then vote against his own motion? He moved that the House do now adjourn, and now he is voting against it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member is identifying one of the more innovative parts of the practices of this place. I can assure you that the honourable member knows exactly what he is doing.17:32:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.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. *Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Mutch, S. B. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *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.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Bevis, A. R. Sullivan, K. J.Grace, E. L. Costello, P. H.McLeay, L. B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Willis, R. Moore, J. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills4160r454Consideration resumed from 26 May.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.4160Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 90 (lines 8 to 19), omit point 1067L-B2 and the note, substitute: Person who is not a long term income support student1067L-B2 If the person is not a long term income support student (see section 1067K), work out whether the person: (a) is a member of a couple (see section 4); and (b) has a dependent child (see subsections 5(2) to (9)). The person's maximum basic rate is the amount in column 3 of the table that corresponds to the person's situation as described in column 2 of the table.Table BA—Maximum basic rates (persons who are not long term income support students) Column 1 ItemColumn 2 Person's situationColumn 3 Rate1Does not have a dependent child$265.502Has a dependent child and is not a member of a couple$347.803Has a dependent child and is a member of a couple$291.60Note: The rates in column 3 are indexed annually in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 91 (lines 1 to 9), omit point 1067L-B3 and the note, substitute:Long term income support student1067L-B3 If the person is a long term income support student (see section 1067K), the person's maximum basic rate is $322.40.Note: The rate provided for in this point is indexed annually in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).(3) Schedule 2, page 119 (after line 28), after item 24, insert:24A At the end of section 1067B (but before the note) Add: ; and (f) is not a person who: (i) qualified for the independent living allowance under the AUSTUDY scheme, as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 11 to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998 , only under AUSTUDY Regulation 68, as in force at that time; and (ii) had not, at that time, turned 25.(4) Schedule 9, page 227 (after line 3), after Part 4, insert:Part 4A—Amendment relating to child disability allowance106A After subparagraph 953(b)(iii) Insert: (iiia) the child receiving youth allowance; or(5) Schedule 10, item 2, page 271 (after line 30), after clause 111, insert:111A $3,000 opening balance for student income bank for students transferring from AUSTUDY (1) If an AUSTUDY living allowance was payable, or is to be taken to have been payable, immediately before 1 July 1998, to or in respect of a person who is of youth allowance age on that day, then Step 1 of the Method Statement in point 1067G-J3 applies to the person as if the reference in that Step to zero were a reference to $3,000. (2) If an AUSTUDY living allowance was payable, or is to be taken to have been payable, immediately before 1 July 1998, to or in respect of a person who is of AUSTUDY age on that day, then Step 1 of the Method Statement in point 1067L-E2 applies to the person as if the refer ence in that Step to zero were a reference to $3,000.Motion (by Mr Ruddock) proposed:That the requested amendments be made.29:37:004161Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 returns from the Senate with several valuable amendments and requests for amendments, most of which were initiated by the ALP. One of these removes the proposed at home rate for students aged 25 and over living at home. This rate would have meant a reduction in Austudy payments of up to $45 a week for a thousand students. The government's proposed changes would have meant a drop from the current maximum rate of $132 to $85 a week. Under these arrangements, some recipients would not have been able to continue their studies. This raises the question of where parental responsibility ends under the Howard government.The opposition mounted a strong campaign on this issue, pointing out its obvious unfairness. Reducing levels of benefits for older students living at home unreasonably assumed a level of income support from parents to their offspring well into adulthood. This measure followed the inequitable action of the coalition in raising the independence age for Austudy from 22 to 25.This bill was supposed to be about administrative arrangements for older students receiving Austudy, but for the thousand or so students affected, it would have represented a most unjust arrangement—not just administrative but substantially unjust. The sum of $90 a fortnight is a great deal of money for people on low incomes struggling to complete their education. The opposition is pleased that the government accepted its amendments on this issue in the Senate.I must point out that the opposition was rather dismayed by the attitude taken to these measures by the Australian Democrats. Their first priority was to try to extend rent assistance for students older than 25 instead of defending an existing benefit paid to the students affected by this amendment. Indeed, it is a reflection of this boutique party's approach on education measures that the Australian Democrats are continually making ambit claims and, in so doing, are not representing the best interests of students as tactics and measures arise in the Senate.Just last Saturday I listened in amazement as the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Meg Lees, addressed a conference of government school organisations. She was talking about the record of the Democrats on education. As with this measure, what is their record? They have no record of funding schools. They have never funded a school in Australia. They have never funded a TAFE college in Australia. They have never funded a university. Their only record is to make ambit claims and to use tactical measures in the Senate to try to improve their political advantages. On education matters, this is a boutique party which is trying to niche market itself towards a certain part of the constituency.The claim of the Australian Democrats to care for Australian youth is not reflected in the fact that they would abolish funding for every non-government school around Australia, thus taking public funding away from hundreds of thousands of young Australians trying to get the very best education. On this, as with many other tactical measures adopted by the Democrats in the Senate, the ALP rejects their position.We are pleased to support in the House a Senate amendment that was initiated by the ALP in the other place. We are pleased that the government has had the sense to adopt our position on this measure. All the same, the opposition recommits itself to improving the youth allowance operations when in government. It is not fair and it is not going to be successful to drive 27,000 students back into our schools without adequate support. The government had a funding submission that showed that $140 million was needed to make the new system work. Schools are being short-changed by $100 million, and that is a matter that the ALP will certainly be improving upon when we form a government after the next election.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment4162Motion (by Mr Ruddock) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.416217:41:004162Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak in support of the government's response to National Reconciliation Week, and in particular the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to this issue. Our theme this year, as the Prime Minister outlined earlier, is `communities working together'. This is in keeping with the government's fundamental belief that the interests of indigenous people are best served by moving forward together to solve today's problems and to create a bright future for all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike.Some people in this place and elsewhere want to use this week as an occasion to apportion blame, to inflict guilt upon this generation for the wrongs of the past, and to encourage a victim mentality rather than a positive problem solving approach to the issues that confront us. Contrary to some opinions, the Prime Minister has personally apologised and expressed his regrets on more than one occasion in this place and in public.I would like to take this opportunity in this place in National Reconciliation Week to express my sorrow and regret for the mistakes of the past. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we need to acknowledge past wrongs and to resolve to address the problems that we are still facing, which is exactly what the Howard coalition government is doing. At the end of its first four years in office this government will have spent almost $700 million more in real terms on indigenous-specific programs than the previous government spent in its last four years. The bulk of this spending is in the areas of housing and infrastructure, health, education, employment and training, and economic development.In the area of indigenous health alone, as the Prime Minister stated earlier, we have increased spending in real terms by 37 per cent since 1995-96. Included in this spending is a raft of new initiatives, including programs to fight respiratory illnesses and immunisation against influenza. Work is also under way to respond to priority health issues such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Resources have been especially devoted to hearing and eye health. Diseases affecting health status in these areas are causes of significant morbidity, but also contribute to the relatively high level of disability within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.I am delighted to say that we are also spending $63 million to address the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. The government has also maintained a strong commitment to the Abstudy and community development and employment programs. To address the difficulties faced by our indigenous communities, we have allocated funds in areas which will bring about significant long-term improvements. I congratulate the Prime Minister for his stance in this area of policy, and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) for the many positive initiatives that this government has promoted and implemented.Sadly, true reconciliation will probably not come about in our immediate generation—and how can it? How can it when our indigenous people have a higher rate of incarceration per head of population and their health care and educational needs are not met, nor are they anywhere near the standard of the rest of the population. Perhaps here, as a government, we could take a leaf from the book of Fred Hollows and provide not just eye care but comprehensive health care to remote areas by mobile caravan. What could be more simple or more effective than having it staffed by our own indigenous nurses and doctors—by those who best understand their spiritual, cultural and health needs?As I said, reconciliation will not come about in this generation. Rather, it will come about when all our children have been taught that, to differentiate one person from another, you need only ask their name. For true reconciliation, it is my hope that in the future our children do not feel the need to differentiate people by their race, religion, age, gender or culture or whether they have disabilities—or, rather, special abilities. That hope, I believe, is well founded.During the last school holidays, my two young boys went on a camp with the YMCA of Adelaide and shared their cabin with two brothers—very special, funny guys—both of whom, I sadly noticed (with the emphasis on `I') had intellectual and physical disabilities. When I asked how the two guys with the disabilities coped, my sons answered that there were no kids with disabilities that they noticed and questioned my concerns. What did my sons notice? That these two boys had a great sense of humour and were the greatest at basketball swishing, and that these two guys with the supposed disability were the only ones on camp who knew the entire Crows Club song word for word. The only thing my sons noticed of any difference was that these guys were super cool dudes. (Time expired)416317:46:004163Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise tonight to congratulate and, indeed, endorse the statement made today by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. It is a statement of principle which highlights just how far to the right the Liberal and National parties have come since the previous Fraser government. I will cite a couple of quotes from Malcolm Fraser's letter. He says:The Liberal and the National Parties have done Australia a great disservice. It is nonsense to suggest that their preferences will not be counted and that therefore the order of preference does not matter. If that were so, they would clearly have placed One Nation last.He goes on to say:On one issue alone, One Nation stands condemned: its policies are anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal and anti-Semitic. Its policies are racist.This comes from someone who was a Prime Minister of this country for eight years. This comes from someone who, whatever differences I would have with him on economic policies and on other social policies, has integrity on the basis of race. You have to have integrity across the board or you do not have it at all.It is one thing when you are addressing a Lebanese community meeting or a Greek community meeting, such as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) does regularly—and he works very hard and puts forward a view of support for multiculturalism. But it is another thing when you are out there, when you see a political advantage, to do a sleazy deal with One Nation over preferences in Queensland and foreshadowing sleazy deals at the federal level.Malcolm Fraser has great integrity saying this because he has been there and done that. We all remember—and, indeed, remember well—his stance against apartheid in South Africa. We well remember that the two leaders who refused to condemn apartheid and did not grace themselves in that debate against that disgraceful regime in South Africa were Margaret Thatcher and, of course, John Howard, in his previous incarnation as Leader of the Opposition, when he failed to take on the apartheid regime. In terms of Malcolm Fraser's comments, he makes it clear:Politicians in many things are pragmatic and indeed must be. That implies an element of compromise but there are basic beliefs, basic principles, which cannot be compromised. Opposition to racism is perhaps the most important of such principles.And he says:Placing One Nation before the Australian Labor Party implies a respectability to One Nation which that party does not deserve.Frankly, parties which do have a racist agenda do need to be put last. I, along with all Labor Party candidates across this nation, will certainly be putting One Nation last at the coming federal election.It is not just an issue of conscience. One would have thought that those opposite would have recognised that there is also an economic imperative because it embarrasses our international standing in the region and, indeed, in the world. I have travelled overseas as a representative of this parliament. When I went to South Africa and met with leaders of the now ANC controlled government there, one issue kept coming up. That issue was Pauline Hanson, One Nation and what Australia was doing about it. They want to know about it.When you travel in Asia and talk to the leaders there, they will ask, `What is the phenomenon of this woman running this agenda and why is it that she hasn't been isolated by decent, fair-minded Australians?' The fact is that John Howard has form on this issue, on the issue of Asian immigration, on the issue of South Africa and on the issue of his failure to condemn Pauline Hanson's maiden speech and his failure to distance the government and all decent Australians from that agenda.People of goodwill should be demanding that the Liberal and National parties distance themselves from One Nation. Do not go down this opportunistic road because, at the end of it, we are all diminished as a nation by this opportunistic coalition in terms of preferences between the Liberal and National parties and One Nation. Malcolm Fraser has really highlighted, and done Australia a great service in highlighting today, the disgraceful actions of this Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and of the government parties in Queensland. (Time expired)416417:51:004164Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to celebrate good work, to celebrate and recognise the contribution of the Mount Erin Secondary College, many of its dedicated professionals and the band of very committed people who work with the Operation Newstart program that is administered through Mount Erin Secondary College. A few weeks back, I had the opportunity to attend the graduation ceremony for the fourth intake of the program. These young people between 14 and 18 from the Frankston City area come to be involved with the Mount Erin Secondary College's Operation Newstart because they are having difficulty fitting in with the educational environment—there are some challenges that are before them as people and in their lives that make their full involvement in the educational curriculum difficult.Those young people are involved in a program that over a period of 10 weeks takes them through issues that are in their lives. It helps them adjust to the educational environment and delivers to them new skills and new respect for themselves and for the opportunities that are afforded to them so they can make the best of those opportunities and make a go of their lives. The people who are involved with this program include the Police High Ropes Challenge; Mr Paul Kill, the tireless coordinator of the program; Jeff Halmaric, from the Victorian Police; and others within the region, both at an educational level and in the human services area. They are supported by people from industry, including Brian Goodman, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce, Troy Flanagan, from RMIT, plus a host of other dedicated people who are all making a go of this program.Of the seven young people who were involved in intake four, six were successful in that they were able to return to the school environment, get involved in a TAFE program, take up an apprenticeship or find a job. That is a 90 per cent success rate for people who are finding it hard because of the experiences they have had or the challenges that confront them. They are making a go of their lives.One of the great things the program seeks to do is to get people back on track. So while the coalition government is getting us financially back on track, Operation Newstart is helping young people in my community get back on track. They work through the development of personal skills. They gain qualifications. They build their confidence and self-esteem. They tackle some issues, such as substance abuse, that may be limiting their potential.I would like to celebrate, in particular, a young man who was involved in this program some time ago. He was that young gentleman who, on seeing a Vicroads worker having trouble breathing at the Flinders Street Railway Station, jumped in and applied the skills that he had learnt to save that man. That young man's name is Ben Dunmall. Ben is a young man who was involved in the program. He noticed that Victoria Met employee at the railway station, saw that he was having great difficulty and resuscitated him. That is a young man who has done something quite significant and made a profound impact on another person's life. Ben received a special lifesaving award from Ambulance of Victoria for his very particular contribution and for the application of the skills he provided.Operation Newstart and John Burrell, who is the chairperson of it and the principal of the secondary college, should be appreciated, encouraged and rewarded. I would also like to add that the Connections Program at the Monterey Secondary College seeks to achieve the same objectives, and I would be delighted to inform the House of those at a later point in time.416517:55:004165Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I will be brief tonight in my comments about some tourism issues. I cannot believe that my tongue-in-cheek comments, as reported in the Illawarra Mercury , could get so many people in the government so excited. When I was talking about the opportunity to rev up Illawarra tourism in the adjournment debate earlier this week, the member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) and the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) scurried in here and proceeded to attack me.The simple fact of the matter is that anyone who knows anything about tourism could not be other than impressed by the fact that the Blue Mountains and the Hunter Valley do things extremely well. I have been to both locations in recent times. As a matter of fact, I was up in the Hunter Valley a week or so ago. Since I have been the shadow minister for tourism, that was probably the third or fourth time I have been there. I was in the Port Stephens area, I was at Maitland, I was at Nelson Bay, and I met with people from the tourism industry there and talked about the great product that each of them has to sell. I was impressed by the way in which the Hunter Regional Tourism Organisation has gone about its particular way of doing things. The point that I was making, and which I am afraid was missed by those on the other side with less than a thorough understanding of tourism, was that in the Illawarra we have to do it better.My comments have received instant recognition. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, in the year 2000, the ACTU congress is going to be held in Wollongong in the new sports entertainment centre, a centre that is being constructed at the present minute courtesy of a $17 million grant from the state government, for which we will be eternally grateful to Bob Carr. This follows hard on the heels of the news that 3,000 delegates will be coming for an International Lion's Club conference in Wollongong in the year 2001. It would seem that at long last people in Wollongong are getting their act together when it comes to tourism. We have so many attractions, both natural and man-made.The point again that I would make—and I hope it is repeated in the Blue Mountains and in the Hunter Valley—is that we are going to compete against you. We are going to compete against you for those tourists who go for the beauty of the Blue Mountains and for the wine industry in the Hunter Valley, and I make no apology for that at all. We have the Illawarra, with Australia's industry world, with its hotels, with its beaches, with the indoor sports entertainment centre and with its great rugby league team. All of those are attractions which we will be promoting.I say to the rest of Australia that Wollongong and the Illawarra are coming after you in the tourism market. We recognise the value of tourism to Australia's economy. We also recognise the damage the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and her One Nation Party are causing the tourism industry in broader Australia and we are not going to put up with it. Despite her best endeavours, we will be attempting to attract not only domestic but international tourists to the Illawarra. The Blue Mountains, in the federal seat of Macquarie, and the Hunter Valley, in the electorate of Paterson, should certainly be warned.In any case, I will conclude on this point. Bob Horne is going to be here. He knows the true value of tourism—he showed me around the other day—as do the people in the Hunter Valley. He will be here more properly representing them after the next election.41664166Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) for allowing me to say a couple of words before the House adjourns. It has just come to my notice that on Saturday, 16 May, a very distinguished Australian, the mother of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, died.Mrs Una Fraser was the mother of Laurie and Malcolm. She was an extraordinarily cultured, delightful and traditional lady who made, in her own right, a very significant contribution in a range of intellectual pursuits. As one who worked with Malcolm and knew Mrs Una Fraser best during those days when he was Prime Minister, I can assure all Australians that she had a remarkable impact not only on Malcolm but on us all. She was very much a lady of her generation. She was truly a wonderful reflection of the best of the 20th century. On behalf of all members of this parliament, I would like to extend our deepest sympathy to Malcolm, Tammy and their family and to Laurie, and to say how proud they must be to have had such a wonderful person as their mother and friend.416617:59:004166Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—On indulgence, I wish to associate the opposition with those kind words you have given, Mr Speaker. We do remember her and express our condolences to Malcolm.18:00:004166House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices4166The following notices were given:Mr Richard Evans to move:That this House:(1) notes the success of the Federal Assistance Grants (FAGs) provided to local communities through local councils;(2) notes the system of distribution of these grants can at times disadvantage certain communities;(3) notes the FAGs system is due for review on 30 June 2001; and(4) calls upon the Government to urgently review the FAGs scheme to improve the distribution of grants to consider disadvantaged communities more equitably. Documents4167The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 May 1998:Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 15, 16, 17.Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 1 June 1998 as the date on which Divisions 5 and 6 of Part 2 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Act 1997, shall come into operation.Taxation Administration Act—Determination No. TD 98/11.Rulings Nos. TR 97/25, TR 98/6.1998-05-28Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members4168416809:40:004168Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Since the 1970s VicRoads have planned to construct a section of freeway along the Merri Creek from Craigieburn South. This was originally intended to join the Eastern Freeway, but as a result of community outcry during the 1970s and 1980s—indeed, when I was in the Victorian state parliament I played a leading role in the deletion of the F2 freeway reservation between Bell Street and Mahoneys Road—sections of the reserve were deleted. However, the freeway reserve between Mahoneys Road and Craigieburn remains.The reserve crosses Merri Creek three times and goes through the western basalt plains grasslands of national and state significance. In 1995 the state minister for planning announced that the proposed route of the freeway would be shifted to the east to minimise the impact on the Craigieburn grasslands. The two grasslands at Cooper Street and Craigieburn, together with the link along the creek between them, were listed on the interim register of the national estate quite recently.Early in 1997 Victorian Minister Rob Maclellan decided that no environmental effects statement was required to investigate the environmental impact of various route alternatives. However, a ministerial advisory committee was set up under the Planning and Environment Act to hold public hearings and to consider the views of councils, government agencies, and conservation and resident groups.Now it seems that the state government is seeking to pre-empt the results of its investigation into the proposed F2 freeway. It appears clear that the government wants to avoid looking at, for example, an upgrade of the current Hume route. Planning Minister Maclellan's advisory committee, which is investigating the routes, is apparently requesting to change its terms of reference. Of course, those terms of reference define what the committee's job is. I am concerned that the change involves dropping investigations into the impact of the upgrade to the current Hume route.The draft flora and fauna study only examined five possible routes to the east of the Hume, whereas if the F2 goes ahead along any of these routes there would be more damage done to the Merri, to the Craigieburn, to Cooper Street grasslands and to the gorge at Barry Road, Thomastown, than through an upgrade of the current Hume route. Moreover, the fieldwork for the flora and fauna study was done at the height of last summer during a period of drought and may need to be repeated.I am calling on the federal Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) to implement a federal environmental impact statement, noting that the F2 is a federally funded road and several species along the proposed routes are protected under national legislation. The Merri Creek Management Committee has done a great deal of work in this area. It is a showcase, it ought to be protected and there ought to be an environmental impact statement. (Time expired)416909:43:004169Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—The 1993-98 Medicare agreement saw $25 billion spent on hospitals. In the forward estimates, under Labor over the next five-year period only $27.3 billion would have been spent on hospitals unless the previous government had increased taxes such as wholesale taxes and income taxes which hit the people out in Lindsay.Under our proposed Medicare agreement $30.3 billion over the next five years will be spent. That is 6.9 per cent real growth that will be built into those Medicare agreements at a time when our government has got inflation down at the lowest levels, unemployment trending down and getting back to the 1990 levels, and interest rates coming down as well. We have a stable economic platform, we are offering them 6.9 per cent real growth in funding and the states—particularly Refshauge in New South Wales—want an extra $1.1 billion a year. They want to tax the taxpayers of the Commonwealth more money in order to provide for their slip-ups.Given that New South Wales cannot organise much in the way of its budget, it has basically imposed land taxes, pokie taxes and bed taxes in order to cover its expenditure. It has also done an enormous amount of cost shifting. Even in my own hospital in the Nepean area there have been complaints of admitting patients from accident and emergency as private patients when they have asked to be admitted as public patients, and thereby shifting the costs onto the Commonwealth.Not only that; if Refshauge got the extra money, I doubt very much whether it would be spent on hospitals. There is every reason to expect that Mr Egan rather than Dr Refshauge would be the beneficiary of any extra Commonwealth funding. To date, none of it has gone into my electorate in Lindsay. In fact, we only get half the amount of dollars per capita at Nepean compared to those inner city residents using inner city hospitals. None of the extra funding to hospitals has come to my area and yet they are getting more Commonwealth funding every year and have done so through the entire time of the Bob Carr government.Instead of fixing this issue, Bob Carr is busy imposing penalties on owners of cats and dogs, penalties that are more severe than we give to people who carry knives. He is busy getting $200 million for better sewerage into Sydney's harbour rather than looking at our Warragamba Dam and trying to fix that problem. He is looking for $200 million to bring down a building in the inner city. All he gives us is a glossy brochure telling us how to live in a flood plain, a siren on Lapstone Hill and an evacuation plan along roads which are a disgrace. (Time expired)416909:46:004169Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—For some time, I have wanted to get on the record the speech that the independent mayor of Penrith City Council, Kevin Dwyer, made in awarding the Penrith 1998 citizenship award this year that both the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) and I attended.Sister Mary-Louise had been a member of the Sisters of Mercy for 25 years and a member of the local community for 14 years when she initiated the Mamre project. She was deputy principal at Our Lady of Mercy colleges at Parramatta and Epping. Over the years, the Mamre project has developed into a highly valued community resource that helps hundreds of unemployed people every year. Approximately 7,000 people have been actively assisted through Mamre. Through her tireless efforts, she has established a haven where people can come to rest and revitalise themselves before moving on to the next part of their own life's journey. The Mamre Tearooms were part of that project. They are not only an important job creation and training enterprise but an ideal attraction for the community to enjoy.In 1984 she was the founding leader of the Mercy youth team working in St Marys-St Clair and was a recipient of the Wall of Achievement award in 1997. Her nomination consisted of many glowing letters about Sister Mary-Louise and her projects and how she has helped people in life. So heartiest congratulations from us all.Sister Mary-Louise Petro started on a very high point on Australia Day 1998. It was a pleasure, as the member for Chifley, and having part of Mamre in my electorate, to be associated with her, to see the team expand and grow and to see their help and assistance expand and grow. After that 14 years contribution, it was a terrible shock to Sister Mary-Louise and the team that they would no longer be part of the government's new Job Network scheme.I was particularly delighted when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), and our spokesman, the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), came to St Marys skillshare on 30 April. They symbolically closed that skillshare, representing all other skillshares nationally which were no longer going to be able to serve the people as they had traditionally done.I wanted to place on record the feelings of the first citizen in Penrith, acting on behalf of all Penrith citizens, towards Sister Mary-Louise and regret that, having started so brightly, the year should end so sadly for her and her team. (Time expired)417009:49:004170McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—I believe there is a dark wall of negativity surrounding the nation. Despite the fact we now have one of the highest standards of living in the world, the opposition keep promoting bleak thoughts of doom and gloom. The intention is, of course, to convince us that we are a sick nation and that they could do much to make us better. Labor's constant negative pronouncements are dutifully reported by the media, which does not always have time to reflect on the fact that this is the same crowd with the same views that sent the nation economically and morally close to bankruptcy.I do not believe the media is biased. There are too many hardworking journalists who have inquiring minds for that to be the case. But I do believe the media as a whole tends to follow the tail of the horse in front. This is apparent when you watch the evening news—you see virtually identical items on every channel—and the daily papers regularly run the same front page story, with often the same photographs and certainly the same angle. To some people, a cup is half full; to others, the same cup is half empty. So when I see a newspaper headline which boldly states `Unemployment locked in at 8%', I wonder why the journalist who designed that headline did not write `Unemployment drops to 8%'.It is obvious the Labor Party and some elements of the media are locked into a negative view; their cup is half empty. Mine is nearly full because of the result of all this government's positive moves—moves which see unemployment drop to below seven per cent in the bulk of my electorate of Griffith and to below five per cent in the remainder of the electorate. My cup is overflowing when I see job opportunities increasing at such a rate in my electorate.In the suburb of Cannon Hill, for example, the unemployment rate has dropped from 9.4 to 6.2 per cent; in Coorparoo, from 9.1 to 6.3 per cent. Why don't the bearers of negative news tout these figures? Because the spendthrifts of this nation—that is, the opposition, the Labor Party—are terrified that the Australian community will realise they are better off, that their cups are half full, not half empty.As we see job creation, and unemployment figures drop, and as we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, we see the opposition work harder at convincing us all that we were better off almost bankrupt, better off without the funds to launch social security programs, better off without the funds to create a national job network—the list of positive programs the Labor Party would spoil goes on. (Time expired)417109:52:004171Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I have been very perplexed and concerned about the rise of One Nation as a political force here in Australia. I think it now is a political force and it is demonstrating in Queensland, at least at this point of time, that it is capable of actually winning seats—not only determining the outcome of seats but winning seats in Queensland. I regard this with a great deal of alarm because, frankly, I have always judged its policies to essentially be racist. I do not use that word lightly. You can analyse and re-analyse what the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has said in the short time she has been here. But, in the end, her comments have been offensive to Aborigines—extremely offensive to Aborigines—and extremely offensive to our Asian neighbours. They have made a judgment on her comments that they would not, I believe, otherwise have made unless they were judged to be racist.I have been disappointed with the way the major parties have handled this problem as I see it. It came to light yesterday that the Liberal Party in the Queensland election is putting One Nation ahead of the Labor Party, as is the National Party, except in one seat. That is where the Liberal Party candidate is an ethnic person, a person of Chinese descent. I know him; I had met him before. He is a fine young man. He is only 22 years of age. Until I met him I did not think he would have much chance of winning. But, having met him, I realise that he is an accomplished young man and he will have a good chance of winning.There is a high ethnic population in that seat, and he alone has imposed his will on the party to place One Nation last in his seat. Other candidates, when they are asked about it, are simply flicking the matter off to their campaign committees. Obviously, the message that they and members of parties have been given results in their saying, `Well, that is a matter for the campaign committee. It is not my decision.' If I were a candidate in that situation and I felt strongly about it, as I understand a number of Liberal state candidates do, it would be a matter that I would take a principled stand on, even to the point of resigning my candidacy. I would feel as strongly as that about it.I told the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) early on that he should have contended more strongly with Mrs Hanson. As Laurie Oakes says in this week's Bulletin—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I acknowledge that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) is seeking the call, but I am constrained by standing orders and House of Representatives practice. I cannot give him the call. He will resume his seat.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty that the standing orders place you under, but your senior colleague the Speaker of the House of Representatives has adopted the practice of allowing things that may technically be in breach of standing orders but are within the spirit of the proceedings of the House. I put it to you that there was never any intention to deny parliamentary secretaries the ability to speak as part of the Main Committee's proceedings.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. He will resume his seat and I will say in response that there is every intention. It is spelt out quite clearly. I regret that I cannot give him the call, but I am the upholder of standing orders in this place. I call the honourable member for Lindsay.417209:57:004172Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I speak further to my previous comments on the economic mismanagement of the Carr government in New South Wales, which is really hurting the people of Lindsay. Our government has delivered them low interest rates worth more than $3,000 a year to the average family in Lindsay. We have delivered to them low inflation rates, the lowest in 10 years. We have delivered to them low unemployment rates, the lowest since 1990. Yet Bob Carr continues to take away those gains by economic mismanagement where he has imposed his pokies tax, his bed tax and his land tax—he has a litany of taxes he keeps coming up with. Still he came up with a $450 million deficit in last year's budget and I shudder to think what he is going to come up with next Tuesday.It is absolutely frightening that this man is in control of the New South Wales economy, of our domestic growth in that state, when we consider the issues that he places a priority on. Here it is, leading up to a financial crisis in our state because of his mismanagement, and he is talking about companion animals legislation. His government is trying to get through parliament legislation which would give the police greater power to deal with cats and dogs. This is despite the fact that the public has been calling out for a tougher stand on crime, gangs and the carrying of weapons such as knives. To make matters worse, the penalties put forward for those who breach these new dog and cat laws are comparable to or heavier than those that are enforced for carrying such weapons as knives.During my time as the local member and through two election campaigns, whenever I have been in and around my electorate I have continually been told by my local constituents that they are concerned about gangs, thugs and weapons, especially those such as knives. The elderly, especially, feel unable to walk the streets at night without feeling threatened. They are trapped in their own homes by the dark. Bob Carr is misguided in giving priority to taking his ire out on cats and dogs.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills4172r492Billsr510Billsr512BillsBills4172Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time. 10:00:004173Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 and related bills, which we are debating now, facilitate the electronic settlement of cheques and, in so doing, speed up the settlement period between the banks. It ought to be said that the law has lagged behind technological progress in terms of default on cheques, failure of institutions and so on. It is noted that credit unions, for example, are anxious that this legislation be passed because I understand their entry into the payment system is conditional on it being passed. I would indicate at the outset that there is nothing in this legislation to which the opposition would object and we intend to support it.I will, however, make a few remarks about the issue of cheques and the timeliness of cheque clearing, and about the conduct of banks more generally. Cheques continue to play an important role in the Australian payments system. I understand that each day around three million cheques, worth over $17 billion, are written by individuals, by businesses and, to a declining extent, by governments. This represents a little under 40 per cent of the number and 35 per cent of the value of non-cash payments. Some 15 years ago, cheques accounted for a higher proportion of the number of non-cash payments in Australia and almost all of the value. But you can see from those figures that cheques continue to play a major role in our financial system.There has been quite a lot of concern expressed about the length of the delay, the standard five-day delay, imposed by the banks in clearing cheques. There was an article published by the Reserve Bank in October 1996 which made some interesting observations about the way in which this is dealt with. The Reserve Bank did note that the banks are required to pay interest on deposits during this clearing cycle—in other words, customers start accruing interest from day one rather than day five. However, it should also be noted that the amount of interest paid to retail customers is less than the income that the banks can generate from the substantial float that they accumulate by delaying the clearance of cheques.Despite acknowledging the considerable costs incurred by the banks in issuing and processing cheques, there was, I think, a quite strongly critical flavour to the Reserve Bank's comments on the commercial banks' failure to reduce the standard five-day clearing period. The Reserve Bank noted that there were developments in prospect that could shorten this clearing period, including the electronic presentment of the cheques—that is to say, the bank at which the cheque is deposited scans the cheque and sends the details electronically to the issuing bank. Indeed, that is precisely the process which we are facilitating here. But the Reserve Bank concluded their article by saying:. . . progress towards a shorter clearing cycle for cheques has been painfully slow. Industry focus on this issue needs to be much sharper, if further damage to the industry's stock of goodwill is to be avoided.I think that is exactly right, and there is some legitimate public and community concern about the delay being taken in this area.I understand that, as part of its scrutiny of the Reserve Bank's 1995-96 annual report, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration was investigating cheque clearing procedures and standards in further detail. The committee sent a questionnaire on cheque clearing to each of the major banks, as well as to the Australian Payments Clearing Association. This indicated that the five-day waiting period is the general industry standard but that there are some circumstances in which customers can access their funds in a shorter period—for example, if there are government cheques, or, in the case of the Commonwealth Bank, two days for Commonwealth Bank cheques drawn on the same branch as the deposit account. There is also a suggestion that faster clearance is regularly provided to customers who have established a good reputation at their local branch.I repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is an area of some public interest and indeed public concern and in the limited time that I have had to look at this bill prior to its coming here I have not been able to make further inquiries as to what became of that House of Representatives Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee report or investigation of these matters. I would be pleased to hear from a government representative either during the course of this debate or at some other appropriate time just what has become of that report.Having said that, I do want to make a few remarks about some of the conduct of the banks in general, noting that, with this bill, we are playing our role in facilitating bank commerce and bank transactions as we always do to the best of our ability. Going back to 8 April, I made some remarks here in the Main Committee about Commonwealth Bank branch closures. Subsequently, on 29 April, I received a letter from the Commonwealth Bank in response to the concerns which I had expressed about Commonwealth Bank branch closures, and in particular the closure of the Strathmore branch in my electorate, and I just want to take the House through some of the remarks which the Commonwealth Bank made and a few observations that I make in the light of their comments.First up, the bank says, `The competitive marketplace in which the Commonwealth Bank operates impels us to deliver the most effective outcomes for all our stakeholders, customers, shareholders and staff.' That is simply not the case. They are certainly interested in delivering to shareholders. Their representatives on the ground at public meetings have made it clear that what they are on about is delivering for shareholders. They are not, however, interested in delivering for staff, many of whom are made redundant or retrenched as a result of this process. They are not about delivering for customers who no longer have access to a branch in the community in which they live and for whom the alternatives which have been offered are simply not good enough.Secondly, the bank goes on to say in its response that it undertakes a review of demographic trends of the bank's geographic area of influence and that, when a decision is made to close a branch, the bank in essence is following its customers. That is laughable. The people of Strathmore still live where they have always lived, and many of them have lived there for decades. The bank is not following its customers. It is abandoning its customers. It is saying, `Well, now we will have a branch in Essendon or in Moonee Ponds and if you want to do your banking directly over the counter with the Commonwealth you are going to have to come to us there.'In response to the concern that I expressed about automatic teller machines, they said that there are some problems with automatic teller machines in relation to security problems and that some of these stem from factors beyond their control. They say, `We would therefore encourage you to take any actions or representations to organisations or agencies with responsibilities in these matters in order that these issues be more actively addressed.' In other words, they want somebody else to pick up the security problems which they are creating by abandoning an over-the-counter presence in Strathmore. They think that the local council or the police or some other body ought to be doing more to make automatic teller machines safer. The idea that other agencies within the community should take action so that the bank can make ever higher profits and their executive salaries can increase is certainly not one which I support.They also refer in their correspondence to the need for them to recover some of the costs associated with conducting accounts. The banks are now in the business of sending out the message that they are doing us a favour by having our money. They are doing us a favour and they need to recover their costs. I do suggest to the banks that accounts do not cost money; in fact they make money. Indeed, since the closure of the Strathmore branch we have seen more bank branch closures in my electorate in Oak Park, in Brunswick West and in Brunswick East. These represent an abandonment of ordinary customers in the pursuit of ever higher profits.As to what we can do about this, I have been most interested to receive some correspondence from Mr Graeme McEwen who is the Labor candidate for the federal electorate of McEwen—McEwen by name and McEwen by nature. He has put forward the proposition that banks ought to be required by legislation, or as a condition of their banking licence, to maintain branches in rural and outer metropolitan areas except where the level of business falls below a prescribed, unsustainable, loss making level. He points out that apart from requiring a federal government licence under the Banking Act to conduct the business of banking, banks are regulated in the public interest on prudential and other grounds. He says also—and I agree absolutely with him—the major banks make very handsome profits. He suggests that it would be a revenue neutral measure, in the public interest, for a federal government to require banks to maintain their usually already existing branches in such areas. He says that banks would be called upon to invest little by way of new resources, if any, to largely maintain things as they are, or recently existed.I am disappointed that the present member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) is not supportive of that and suggests that that sort of government interference in private businesses is something that does not work and that none of us wants in a democracy. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) says, in relation to Telstra, that we can have a fully privatised Telstra subject to a legislative protection of a standard telephone service for country users. If that is not government interference in a private business, I do not know what is. I think it is entirely appropriate that we consider the application of similar principles in relation to banks as the government is looking to apply in relation to Telstra.As I indicated earlier, we have no objection to the legislation before the House and we propose to support it.10:11:004175Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Is this your maiden speech in this place?RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—No. This bill, the Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 , introduces greater certainty into Australia's financial system. It has arisen in response to the existing ambiguity with respect to the cheque clearance process and the Wallis report recommendation that building societies and credit unions be allowed to issue cheques in their own name. Despite the advent of electronic payment systems in the last two decades, cheques continue to play an important role in the Australian financial system, and indeed for business. Each day around three million cheques worth $17 billion are written by individuals, businesses and governments in Australia. In fact, it is estimated that on average each Australian will write 55 cheques per year.The Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 allows building societies, credit unions and their industry special service providers to issue cheques in their own name. This is of particular importance in rural and regional electorates like my own where banks are rationalising their branches. This rationalisation has largely been driven by the changes that are occurring in the banking industry. These include the proliferation of financial services and the relatively high cost and low profit margins of over the counter transactions compared to other emerging segments of the banking market. This bill helps provide customers with greater choice when choosing a financial institution because the products offered by the building societies and credit unions will now be more comparable to those offered by banks.In regions where banks are rationalising their branches, this bill enables the more flexible building societies and credit unions to have the opportunity to expand and fill the gaps caused by departing bank branches. This, in turn, will stimulate competition for the provision of financial services in these areas. This competition is important because it helps address the costs of Australia's financial system. In 1995, the total cost to users of the Australian financial system was about $41 billion. This is more than the residential construction sector, or the costs of the entire retail sector. It is worth noting that an improvement of just 10 per cent would save $4 billion.The Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill is aimed at clarifying certain legal uncertainties in the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986 which relate to the payments systems concerning unsettled cheques drawn on failed financial institutions. This bill aims to remove these uncertainties by deeming unsettled cheques drawn on a failed financial institution to be dishonoured, and by permitting the collecting financial institutions to reverse the provision of credit, that is, the initial credit made to depositing customers' accounts of the cheques drawn on the failed institution.Under the current payments system, cheques are cleared via a paper clearing stream. Financial institutions collect cheques deposited by their customers and then provisionally credit their customers' accounts with the corresponding amount. But these amounts cannot be withdrawn until the collecting financial institutions are confident that a cheque will not be dishonoured. In the event of insolvency of a participating financial institution, a degree of uncertainty exists as to whether a cheque drawn on the insolvent participant has been honoured. Accordingly, other participants cannot treat unsettled cheques as dishonoured.This bill makes it clear that, in the event of insolvency of one participant, the other participants will have the right to treat the unsettled cheques as dishonoured. It is an important measure because it enables the participants to reverse the provisional credits made to their customers. As a consequence, the customers of the financial institution will be required to seek payment in lieu of a dishonoured cheque from the drawer of the cheque—that is, the person who wrote the dishonoured cheque.This bill is just one of the reforms outlined in the Wallis report that form part of this government's plan to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's financial system—a system with assets worth over $1,000 billion. These reforms are appropriate given the changes to Australia's financial landscape that have occurred over the last two decades, particularly reforms that provide greater security of deposits.One of the most significant changes in regard to deposits has been the introduction of compulsory superannuation. Compulsory superannuation has arisen in response to Australia's ageing population, and the corresponding need to self-fund retirement incomes and reduce the dependence on the age pension in retirement. The introduction of compulsory superannuation has shifted more funds into market linked investments. Superannuation savings alone have reached $280 billion and are growing at a faster rate than bank deposits. Given this substantial increase in deposits, and that these deposits are designed to fund retirement, ensuring confidence in them through effective banking regulation is of paramount importance.Over the last decade, Australian markets have become increasingly global and much more integrated with international financial markets. Fundraising by corporations is also increasingly global and foreign investment, both inward and outward, is growing rapidly as governments reduce the barriers to investment and competition, allowing international markets to search for investment opportunities. This globalisation of finance has intensified the competition for domestic financial suppliers, increased the pressure for international harmonisation of financial regulations and heightened Australia's exposure to world financial shocks and trends. In light of these changes, greater attention to financial reform in the Australian financial system is now required. These reforms are needed to ensure that markets work efficiently and competitively, and that potential sources of market failure are identified.The need for better financial regulation arises also from the risks attached to financial promises, such as the promise to repay borrowed funds. In markets for intense financial promises, two sources of market failure have been identified: information asymmetry, which occurs when customers cannot reliably assess the creditworthiness of a financial promisor, and systemic instability of a financial system. The most powerful risk of systemic instability occurs when financial distress in one market or institution is communicated to another market, engulfing the entire system with a loss of confidence. The Asian economic crisis, which began in Thailand, spread rapidly to other economies in the region for precisely these reasons.This government is committed to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's financial system. The Wallis report has been instrumental in effecting such changes to the financial system. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 saw the implementation of several of the Wallis report recommendations, particularly the establishment of an improved financial advisory body to cope with the increase in market linked investments and with the scope of institutions that now accept deposits. While several of the report's recommendations are yet to be implemented, such as the abolition of the four pillars policy, this government's commitment to financial reform is vital in safeguarding the Australian economy from the shocks experienced by our Asian neighbours and integral in preparing Australia's financial system for the future.10:20:004177Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—It is a pleasure to speak on this issue because it causes me to reflect on the number of inquiries that have occurred in the past 15 or so years into the operation of the Australian financial system, and the way in which each of those inquiries touched upon the need for improvements in the competitive environment in the financial system of this country. It brings to mind also the recommendations that variously were made about how to improve access by different types of financial institutions to cheque and cheque clearing procedures, and also the way in which people that operated chequing accounts through banks or operated similar facilities through credit unions and building societies and other non-bank financial intermediaries were treated.One can go back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when consideration was given to the structure of the Australian financial system through the Campbell committee inquiry. One can follow and trace that through to the latest and greatest of the inquiries, chaired by Mr Stan Wallis—known colloquially as the Wallis committee inquiry into the Australian financial system. I commend Mr Wallis for the work that he and his committee did on looking at the issues, providing a check list at the time on how financial deregulation had developed in this nation in the past 15 years. I cannot say, however, that I share his enthusiasm for some of his more recent pronouncements, particularly yesterday's, with his decision that he will campaign vigorously against the Labor Party in the next election campaign. But I say quite genuinely, as I did have an opportunity to talk with him about his inquiry when it was under way, that the inquiry itself and the recommendations that were made are another stepping stone in the evolution of what I consider to be an excellent financial system when compared with those in other parts of the world.It is interesting that, in the particular issues that we are debating this morning, where we are again opening up yet another part of the financial system in this nation, the recommendations that see us now at this point were actually made in a parliamentary committee inquiry in 1991, by a committee which I chaired. It was a committee which went to great pains to produce virtually a report card, after five years of financial deregulation in this nation, as to how that financial deregulation was proceeding and made recommendations for some further changes that might be necessary.I well remember taking evidence in the course of that inquiry from representatives of people involved in the credit union movement, the building society movement in this nation and parts of the non-bank financial intermediaries area, suggesting that the agency arrangements under which the clearing of cheques took a little longer than was necessary, because of the compulsion on them to have an arrangement with one of the major banks, were archaic. I am delighted, therefore, that some time down the track—dare I say it, seven years down the track—we are actually doing something about it.I note from some of the comments—and I well remember that this was the case—that the former government decided in 1995 that this particular path would be pursued. Again, I was a little disappointed that while both Treasurer Keating, as he was when we reported to the parliament, and subsequently Treasurer Willis finally got around to making the decision on this, it did take a little longer than anticipated. Equally, I was disappointed that the incoming government has taken two years to bring this legislation forward when the former government had already taken the decision in 1995 to proceed with it. That said, better late than never, I guess.Anyone who is in the financial system who is in credit unions or in building societies or other NBFIs will be pleased by the fact that, with the passage of this legislation, the building societies and the credit unions will again have a way in which they can improve their competitive nature by not having to rely on agency arrangements with banks for cheque clearing procedures.I am also pleased that provisions are made in all this legislation, and as part of the broader package of bills that have come forward and been debated in this parliament in recent months because of the Wallis committee report and its recommendations, so that prudential supervisory arrangements are in place which will ensure that people can operate in these different forms of financial operations without feeling in some way that they are going to be burdened by concerns about insolvency and whether or not things are going to go badly for them.One of the ongoing and enduring qualities of the Australian financial system is the fact that there have been very few examples of major bank failures in this nation or failures of other, non-bank, financial intermediaries. There have been some notable examples where, because of rescue packages by the Commonwealth government, some of those failures have been averted—and I am particularly thinking about in Victoria and of where in South Australia some difficulties were also experienced and where the people of that state are still paying for some of those indiscretions. But, in the longer term, no-one really lost out in that, other than perhaps the chief executives of the banks that bore the brunt of the respective governments' concerns as to how they operated at the time.Nevertheless, with globalisation in financial services today and with the fact that there are competitive elements in all facets of society, there is absolutely no reason to think competition in banking services and financial services should not continue to be pursued. I listened with interest to the member for Forrest (Mr Prosser). I dare say others, if there are others in this debate, will possibly comment on the fact that one of the downsides to the way in which competition in banking is running at the minute is that it has seen the closures of many branches and branch networks around this nation.It is an issue which the subsequent manifestation of the committee which I chaired in that inquiry in 1991 is examining in this parliament at the minute. In fact, they are meeting next door, in the committee room, for their regular meeting. We have an inquiry before us looking at the way in which financial services might be delivered in rural and remote Australia because of this ongoing concern about the closure of mainstream banks in some of those towns. The evidence is still mixed. The evidence is still coming in. But it is a fact that, in many smaller rural communities, banks do decide for a variety of reasons that it is no longer economic for them to maintain a physical presence in those towns.It is not happening in rural and remote Australia alone, though. It is similarly happening in urban areas because of the way in which financial transactions can now take place with the utilisation of telephone banking and a whole range of other electronic devices. With the way in which technology, through the use of the Internet, is moving, people are finding, whether they are in business or in their own private homes, that they no longer need to physically visit their banks and line up and talk to a teller to hand over a cheque or a passbook to extract money and so on.With the growth of the `holes in the wall'—the automatic teller machines—the proliferation of those throughout most urban centres means that the physical presences of banks as we once knew them simply are not required. I think there is not a shopping centre in Australia these days that does not have some sort of a boutique bank operating out of it—just a tiny little space, with people working in there, a couple of computers which provide access to whatever information might be required, from home loans through to car loans to a range of other things, and an ATM facility nearby.The structure of modern banking is changing and I do not think people should be afraid of that. But I think there is a residual fear in the Australian nation of change generally, and when it comes to financial services I think people are still worried about the implications of these changes for them. They have not quite caught up with the fact that it is very simple to lock into telephone banking through their home or through their office. They have not caught up with the fact that, over time, you are going to find the necessity of actually going to talk to a teller perhaps is not there.The negative of that is major job losses. It not only means that the branches close down in towns and in the suburbs of cities, leading to unemployment in the financial services sector, but it also means that those jobs will not be replaced. That is of great concern to the finance sector unions and to those people who work in these operations.However, the flip side of some of those arguments is that, in many smaller communities, it is the banks that are being replaced by credit unions, building societies and NBFIs which have seen some niche market there for offering services to people and have now taken up that responsibility. As our inquiry found—and I alluded to this a little earlier—these opportunities and facilities do not necessarily have to be offered through a credit union or a building society with bricks and mortar. It may well be that other small businesses in some of these communities offer those services, as is currently the case in a number of areas.The simple fact is that this legislation is going to improve that competitiveness when it comes to NBFIs because it frees them from the constraints associated with having to have a formal arrangement when it comes to cheque clearing and issuing through major banks. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. As I said earlier, the payment system, as we know it in this country, is going to fundamentally change over time in any case. The way in which people are prepared to access various forms of improvements in communications and telecommunications will show the way for the payment system to change dramatically. Over time, people will come to accept this.Nevertheless, there is still a need for credit unions and building societies to offer services which are separate from the mainstream banks as we know them. Why is that the case? Because people in the community want to feel a degree of friendly service which they believe they are not getting from some banks these days. At the end of the day, they still want to know that they can go to some particular location and see the manager and talk to tellers and service personnel in those financial institutions. They want to know that they can talk to people and get a human response to a human problem that is associated with their banking needs. Not everybody needs to do that, but some people in the community do.It is also significant—and there is plenty of evidence to support this particular view—that building societies and credit unions offer services to those people on reasonably low incomes, because a lot of banks simply do not want them. These days, because of the fees and charges that are imposed on customers, some people simply wonder why they should be giving the banks all of these fees from their very meagre resources—from social security payments or whatever. If they go to credit unions or building societies, these can be utilised for all their transactions and they do not attract any fees. Some are now moving to minimum fees, but they attract less in the way of fees than the banks.It is one of the factors in society today that user pays seems to be a principle that runs fairly deep. So it is with the banking system. If you go into any of the major banks these days, there is a user pays system. Whether it is the cost of withdrawing or depositing money, you will find that, when you get your statement each month, there are charges and account keeping fees. The Commonwealth is still collecting FID and BADs, and all the rest of it, on behalf of the state government and so on. They are there and people see them and they recognise that someone else is getting their money. They do not like that, and why would they?The Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 , the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 and the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 are welcomed by the opposition and by me. As I said, I am disappointed that it has taken seven years down the track from when the committee that I chaired first recommended that building societies, credit unions and NBFIs be given the same opportunities as the banks when it came to the clearing and issuing of cheques. As I said earlier, better late than never. So let us get this legislation in place so that they can continue to compete against the major banks in this country, to provide services to those individuals who believe that they can get a better deal from them.10:35:004181Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I thank the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) for his support of these pieces of legislation. He is quite right; the Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 , the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 and the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 are important and they are long overdue. I would like to thank the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), the member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) and the member for Cunningham for their contributions.The member for Wills raised in his discussion this morning the question of a report of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration in relation to cheque clearing times and some criticism that they had made of that. He asked what had happened regarding that question. I understand that they considered cheque clearing times in their report in September 1997 when they examined the Reserve Bank's annual report. I also understand that at the time it was the intention of the committee not to pursue that question as a separate reference, if I am correct in the advice that I have been given, but that they would again examine it when they were looking at the next RBA annual report.The question of cheque clearing times, of course, is very much in the hands of the banks themselves but there is nothing in the Cheques and Payment Orders Act or any other legislation that would prevent banks reducing cheque clearing times. In fact, I understand that the truncation provisions in the cheques act actually facilitate the reduction in cheque clearing times. I understand the banks are also working with the Australian Payments Clearing Association to look at computer systems and other measures which may address some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Wills and, indeed, I suspect, other members as well, in relation to cheque clearing times.The Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 , the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 and the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 —I will sum them up, if you like, in cognate before we deal with them individually—are part of the government's drive to have a modern, accountable financial system as well as providing legal certainty. The honourable member for Cunningham and, indeed, the members who spoke before, especially the member for Forrest, referred to the fact that the world is changing rapidly, and, indeed, that the Australian financial system and payment systems need to not only keep up to date with that but indeed stay well ahead of it.I think that we have a unique opportunity to drive in this country our position as a regional financial centre. It is incumbent upon the Australian financial system—indeed, incumbent upon the government and the whole parliament—to make sure that we facilitate whatever is required to drive that and provide the confidence for those overseas who are wishing to invest in Australia, establish in Australia and deal with Australia that we are up to speed with the rest of the world. It is a highly competitive area globally. There are some significant uncertainties in a legal sense right across the matters addressed in these three bills. If we do not address those we are not keeping pace with the requirements of a modern financial system.The Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 especially extends into the payment system and close out and market netting the existing rules on set-off. Those set-off rules, I suspect, as most honourable members would know, have been dealt with by the common law for a long time, but there are problems that need to be addressed urgently in a legal sense where there is no case law in relation to the question of the effects of liquidation of one party. We need to make sure that in this financial context those set-off rules are extended in a legal and legislative sense and the government has addressed that with this particular piece of legislation.Honourable members will see also in the bill reference to the zero hour rule and the financial payment system. Again, that is addressing another potential area of concern expressed by many within the financial markets about the need to modernise where we are going.In relation to the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998, honourable members will have heard discussions about that matter today. Basically, this is extending the normal commercial arrangements between financial institution and customer to arrangements between financial institution and financial institution in the event of liquidation. Again, this is another matter that in some respects has been left up in the air, not because of any court cases or legislative provision but rather because of the lack of that protection. This bill seeks to address concerns that have been raised in that regard.There has been reference to the Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill by honourable members. In particular, the member for Cunningham drew to the attention of the House the question of rural and regional areas. If I can get my short-term Treasurer's hat off for a second and put on my regional and development parliamentary secretary's hat, let me say that there is absolutely no doubt there are two burning issues in regional Australia at present. One is the lack of access to doctors, and the government is addressing that and has put in considerable funds in this particular budget. And the other issue concerns the withdrawal of financial services in the bush.There would be some members in this House who would not be able to comprehend not having easy access to a bank or other financial service. There would be many who would not be aware of the physical and emotional traumas that can be involved. For example, after closing his or her small business at 6 p.m. a person might then be required to drive for an hour to a safe deposit box in a major centre to deposit the day's takings. Alternatively, if that person decided to keep the takings at home, that person could lie awake all night wondering whether someone was going to come through the front door and remove those takings.It is a totally different world out there. Those from regional and rural areas on both sides of the House fully appreciate what the problems are, but there would be many from metropolitan areas who would not appreciate that something as simple as depositing the day's takings can require a two-hour drive at the end of a very busy day. There would be some who cannot understand the implications for that in the economic sense, if their funds went astray somehow, and also in the physical sense of having to drive for a couple of hours at the end of a busy day.The government, as you are aware, has moved in relation to extending funds for creditcare. Creditcare is about encouraging credit unions to open up branches in regional and rural areas, or to provide facilities.I have a different view from some. I think there is a unique opportunity for financial institutions such as credit unions to talk to local communities about what their requirements are. Some credit union facilities have been very successfully established in regional areas, where something quite simple has happened. There has been a very healthy dose of commonsense. The institutions sat down with the communities and asked, `What are your requirements?' They did not try to pre-empt what the requirements were and therefore didn't say, `We can't provide a five-day facility; therefore, we won't provide a thing'—which is what some of the banks did say.The credit unions sat down and said, `Right, what are the requirements of this community?' They listened to small business and they listened to people who require funds or receive government funds on a fortnightly basis. They also spoke to many others in the towns and asked, `What are your requirements? Let us see if we can meet them.' When we had that deathly all or nothing approach from some of the banks—where it was either five days and the lot or nothing at all—it really destroyed a lot of small country towns. There is absolutely no doubt that, from a regional development point of view, one of the key things that we need to be able to offer potential investors in smaller centres is banking facilities or banking type facilities.One of the real difficulties in Australia at the moment with the decentralisation approach is convincing metropolitan based businesses, or people who wish to start a business in a country area, that we are further down the track as a community, as a government, as a parliament—whatever it might be—and that we will be able to provide them with financial services. This is a very important aspect for them, and quite obviously so and quite reasonably so.This is an extremely important measure to enable us to give credit unions and rural communities the opportunities to talk. Further to that, by extending these moves in relation to the provision of cheque facilities for other financial institutions, we will start to fill the gaps in the financial services that have been left by the banks closing their branches.This is very important legislation from, if you like, the big picture point of view. The government is absolutely committed to making Australia a regional financial centre. I think recent events have shown that we have a unique opportunity to sell our bona fides around the world as a safe and secure investment place. On the local level, if you like, provisions such as the extension of the cheque facilities to credit unions and other institutions is extremely important for the people that we all represent in this House. I thank all those members who have made a contribution today.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4183r5104183Consideration resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4184r5124184Consideration resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider this bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4184r5244184Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.10:49:004184Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about the data matching program and the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 , which will now make it a permanent feature of the social security system. It is, of course, the case that the data matching program was a Labor initiative. The Data-Matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act of 1990 gave effect to the data matching measures that were announced in the 1990-91 budget.The act created a mechanism for the detection of inconsistent payments being made to a person by two or more agencies and the detection of possible tax evasion. The act defined the method of data matching and placed a limit on the number of data matching cycles. It gave force to data matching guidelines that had been issued by the Privacy Commissioner. The act permitted the use of tax file numbers to assist with the verification with the tax office of income information provided by social security recipients. It also increased data matching between a number of government departments, including Social Security, Veterans' Affairs, Health, Housing and Community Services, Employment, Education and Training, and the tax office.The date in the original sunset clause in the act was January 1993. The act was then amended in 1992 to extend the period of that sunset clause and it was further extended subsequently two more times. This bill before us today completely removes the sunset clause.There is a recognition now that the data matching program is a very effective part of maintaining the integrity of the social security system. Labor in government was running between five and seven data matching cycles a year for each of the years 1991 through to 1996. Savings in 1993 were $80 million, in 1994 savings were $84 million and in 1995 they were $92 million from this measure alone. Awareness of data matching and the use of tax file numbers by the public has also increased voluntary compliance with the social security system, so the effective savings resulting from data matching are greater than the figures that I have just quoted. When the Australian National Audit Office reviewed the program in 1993, it found that it was `a valuable compliance and control technique'.It is important for us to have on the record the history of the program, as it was an important part of Labor's overall effort to put in place a social security system which is effective at identifying and preventing incorrect payments. In 1990-91, when the data matching program was put in place, the annual report of the Department of Social Security said:An effective social security system makes it as difficult as possible for incorrect payments and fraud to occur, has systems in place that minimise the risk of such occurrence, detects it at the earliest possible stage, deals decisively with the cases which are detected, and creates a public recognition of the risk involved in attempting to defraud.This is the system that Labor put in place, and the one that the current government is so keen to score political mileage out of. But it is not the system that Labor inherited in 1983.In 1983 our social security system did not have a systematic method of identifying and collecting incorrect payments. When Labor came to power, the only method of monitoring the system which was reported on concerned the negotiation of fraudulent cheques. That is the way that most social security payments were made then, by cheque.In the last full year of the Fraser government, there were just under 11,000 reported fraudulent negotiations of cheques, with a value of $1.35 million. I am pleased to say that it did not take Labor long to begin the reform of the system. By 1984 Labor had embarked on a major project to convert most payments to the direct deposit method—payment straight into bank accounts—with the goal of reducing the incidence of fraudulent negotiation of cheques.It was also Labor who put in place the range of review mechanisms, including mobile review teams, the use of employment declaration forms, the extended use of duration reviews and the data matching program. By the end of Labor's term in government, in just one year 237,176 overpayments were identified, saving $42 million a fortnight or just over $1 billion a year—a far cry from the $1.35 million in 1982.This government has not been interested in the facts when it comes to this issue. It does believe that there is political mileage to be gained out of focusing exclusively on fraud and compliance. But the main challenge in social security reform is to make sure that there are incentives in the social security system for people who are seeking employment to take a job. In other words, the social security system has to be about providing opportunities for people to move forward. This Howard government has failed to do that. There are now 13,000 more Australians on unemployment and related benefits than there were in March 1996.Not only are there more people on benefits, but they are staying on these benefits longer. Long-term unemployment continues to rise under this government. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) never actually comments on that. She always comments on fraud and abuse and welfare cheats rather than actually talking about and putting in place opportunities to move people forward, to move people off welfare and into work.Of course, good governments have to do both: they have to look at how to maintain the integrity of the social security system, but just as importantly they have to provide opportunities for people to move ahead and to get off welfare and into work. What Australia actually needs is a government that will do both of those things, that will protect our social security system from fraud and abuse but will also move people off unemployment benefit and back to work.Labor intends to do this both positively and constructively. That is what our tax credit scheme, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) announced last Sunday, is aimed to do. It will provide incentives for people to get back to work to improve the situation of their families. Labor also supports the extension of the data matching program. It is a Labor initiative, one that has contributed to the overall effectiveness of our social security system.But Labor will do more than just make sure that the system is not open to abuse. We will make sure that the system does not trap people in a cycle of poverty and dependence. Labor intends to make sure that the social security system does provide security: the security of knowing that if you lose your job there will be an unemployment benefit to make sure that you do not fall into poverty. Our system will also offer opportunity to make sure that when you do get a job it will be worth while, that more of what you earn you will be able to keep, so that families can get ahead.We are pleased to support this bill today, but we call on the government to recognise that social security has to do so much more than prevent fraud and abuse. It has to provide the opportunity for those who are looking for work to find those jobs and, when they do, to be able to hold on to more of what they earn.10:58:004186Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—in reply—I welcome the support from the opposition for the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 . In my view, the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), has been stung by the nature of the changes that have been effected by this—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It's our bill.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Well, stung by the range of measures that this government has implemented to achieve a much more compliant system. I do not believe we would have heard the very defensive speech from her in relation to these measures were that not the case. As a previous shadow minister I have held the role that Ms Macklin now has, and I had to endure comments by a former Minister for Social Security about the effectiveness of the system that Labor was operating. In fact a report by an American expert who was brought out here to comment—a Professor Weatherley, if I remember correctly—seemed to endorse the same view.We have been able to demonstrate in office that the concerns that we had—that not everything that should be done was being done—have been rectified in the results that we have been able to achieve. In 1996-97 the government has saved $28 million every week from more effective compliance activities, and that is an amount of money that would otherwise have been paid by taxpayers to people who had no proper entitlement.The measure that we are addressing here is one which we were concerned about in opposition. The measure has been shown over time to be efficacious but the reason that the sunset clause remained in legislation over a period of time was that the Labor Party, in operating this system in government, was not able to demonstrate its efficacy. What we have been able to demonstrate is that, as part of a whole system dealing with effective compliance, we now are able to achieve savings approaching those which the former government believed were realistic estimates of what ought to be saved but which, in its operations of this scheme, it was not able to demonstrate could be saved.The importance of this measure is that with the data-matching arrangements, with appropriate privacy requirements which have been the subject of very detailed consultation with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the arrangements are properly operating and are not an impediment to the maintenance of privacy, we are able to ensure that as a result of better targeting of selections and an increase in the number of reviews that have been completed as well as improvements in the quality of the review work across Centrelink—a matter that has been acknowledged by the audit report on the data-matching program in 1996—we now have a program that has proven that it plays an important role in ensuring the overall integrity of the social welfare system.Through demonstrating that overpayments and fraud will be detected, I think we are able to ensure that the targeted welfare system that we have operates appropriately. The point that we now make is that data-matching is an integral part of the system and it plays an important part in ensuring the maintenance of the integrity of that system. In that context, it is appropriate now for the sunset clause to be removed. We welcome the support from the opposition for this measure.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4187r525Billsr526Bills4187Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.11:03:004187McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 is not a very major bill but it is a bill about a very major question. It is a matter that requires a fair bit of serious deliberation by the Main Committee and it will require significant consideration by the industry and future governments over the two years of the trial which is initiated by this bill.The government has trumpeted film licensed investment companies as a very important funding initiative in the film industry, and perhaps in time they will be. But that which we have here before us today is merely a fig leaf—and it is a rather inadequate fig leaf—to cover what is a very large embarrassment. It fails manifestly to cover that embarrassment, which is why I will be moving, on behalf of the opposition, an amendment to the motion for the second reading. The government should be embarrassed about what it has done to Australia's film industry. It has been steadily hacking away at government support for this very important industry.The film industry is one of those industries of the future. This government seems to be obsessed with attacking all of the industries which have the capacity to create 21st century jobs: industries based on intellectual property; industries based on creativity; industries that are going to create the jobs and the opportunities for the young Australians we are educating and training in institutions of higher learning—TAFEs, universities and colleges—around the country.This is a very important industry economically. It is a very important articulation of Australia's identity. It is a very significant part of the way in which we articulate our identity to ourselves. The picture that people portray in the film industry is a very important part of the debate about what sort of country we are and what sort of country we might aspire to be. No healthy nation can flourish without that debate being nurtured, encouraged and strengthened and without the opportunity to participate being broadened and deepened in our community.But of course the film industry communicates a sense of Australian identity beyond Australia. It very effectively communicates that picture of Australia around the world. We all feel a buzz of pride when Australian films win awards or top the box office. When Geoffrey Rush wins an Oscar everybody feels a bit better; it is a great victory for Australians, particularly considering the people that voted for him. We all think it is pretty hard to get elected to this place—you should try getting elected by Americans to win an Oscar if you are not an American. I have to say I think it is a bit hard.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—If you keep going you will get a nomination.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Yes, at least I would deserve it. This is very important and something for which there ought to be enthusiasm. It is actually important for our country but it is obvious that the government do not appreciate that. It is a pity that they make it so apparent.The other aspect of why the government should be embarrassed about the cuts they have made to the film industry—I suppose it will not come as a surprise to anybody, but it ought to be put on the record—is the simple fact that they promised before the election that they would not do it. This was not one of those promises about which three years later they are saying, `Oh, we have changed our minds so we are going to put a new proposal.' This was not a `never ever' that they are revising after the next election. This was a `never ever' that they broke immediately and they have continued to break in every budget. This was a very short `never ever'. It hardly survived the ink on the page on which the policy was printed.It is for that reason that 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 deplores the actions of the Government in reducing support for the Australian film industry".We considered delineating it all in the motion, as has been done a few times before and is something that is often done in the House, but in this instance I will just move the amendment in those abbreviated terms and outline the source of that concern.When the government came to office the level of assistance to film, TV and multimedia industries explicitly in the budget—I will refer to some of the other areas that have been cut that affect the film industry in a moment—was $97 million. In the budget which has just been brought down the assistance is $70 million. That is a 30 per cent cut and the outyear forecasts and projections are for that $70 million level to be sustained through to the year 2001-2002. It is a very bleak picture indeed—a retreat from responsibility.In the arts in general, where these cuts have been perpetrated across all areas of the arts, the general attitude has been one of slight relief. People are saying, `It could have been worse. We remember conservative oppositions proposing even worse than has happened here.' There was relief when Film Australia was not wiped out. This was a big announcement by the government: `We've decided not to get rid of Film Australia.' In fact, when you analyse it, not one extra dollar was made available to the film industry as a result of that. The critical documentary area, which is the area under most stress in our film industry, got not one extra dollar. But they were relieved. They thought they were going to lose six but they lost nothing. So they said, `That wasn't too bad.' The same principle applies in other areas of the arts.However, in film, the `It could have been a worse' scenario has now been surpassed. It has just got worse because the cuts that were there in 1997-98 have been made much worse in 1998-99, particularly with the abolition of the commercial television production fund. We have, effectively, had $27 million cut from government support directly to the film industry.On top of that we have had the massive cuts in government support to that other area which has been critical to the development of many of the most innovative and many of the best creative talent in our country, and that is the ABC. The ABC has always been a very important source of film and television production, and it still is, but its capacity to do it has been very significantly weakened by the extent of the cuts made to it in the successive conservative budgets which we have had to face.The figures there are slightly ameliorated in the outyear projections in this budget because of the money provided to the ABC for digitisation. But, when you look at what is available for programs and production, there is nothing new. There is no improvement, no opportunity, nothing to compensate for the fact that $20 million has been cut out of the commercial television production fund, that the Australian Film Commission has been pruned back and, what is worse, that the pruning has led to cuts in the most critical areas for new film production.The Film Commission gives support to first time scriptwriters, first time directors, people who are trying to break into the industry—the R&D of the film industry. That is where the cuts have been made. Why should we be surprised? That is where the cuts have been made in every other industry as well—R&D, new ideas, imagination, creativity, the 21st century jobs in industry. Everywhere you look, that is where the cuts have been made, including intellectual property. All those areas are being cut away, undermined, and the industries that depend on them, which are the industries that every other country thinks is the basis of its 21st century economy, are being cut away and undermined.People do not appreciate readily how significant an industry the film and television industry is. On the most recent figures, it contributes about $1.2 billion a year to the Australian economy. It employs more than 20,000 people and earns considerable export revenue. We have a net trade deficit in intellectual property in film and television, but every nation apart from the United States has that deficit. However, we actually gain substantial export revenue from this industry and so we should be encouraging and nurturing it, as we should our other areas of export.Let us briefly look at the background to the bill that is before us. The financial background is the bleak picture I have just provided. The sequence of events begins with the government's Gonski report, commissioned soon after it came into office—and a very interesting report it was. I must say that I was never convinced of the need for the report but, if the report had to be done, David Gonski was a good choice: he prepared an intelligent report.We found that there was great expectation in the industry last year, at the most recent Screen Producers Association conference, that the minister was going to turn up and make a major announcement. There was quite a sense of expectation, because nothing positive at all for the film industry had come out of the government, since 2 March 1996—no good news. The best news they had had was the absence of bad news about Film Australia. They got a very wimpy little minor decision in response to Gonski, which was `We won't get rid of 10BA, because we know the alternative we are proposing is inadequate and won't fill the gap. We will have an inadequate little trial in order to make it appear that we are taking an initiative and thus we will be able to trumpet that we are going to generate more funds for the film industry.'I hope we get a taker for the film licensed investment company concept. We probably will, because Australian history is replete with people who have been enthusiastic and optimistic and have made investments in the film industry. It is not actually chock-a-block with people who have made a lot of money out of doing it; nevertheless, people continue to come forward and to try, and that is extremely welcome. I think somebody will take up this opportunity, but a lot of people in the industry are very dubious about it. The Screen Producers Association and those most directly affected have questioned whether the FLIC proposal is sufficiently attractive to be viable alongside section 10BA in the tax act, which is a basic tax support for the film industry.The opposition basically supports the idea that 10BA should be replaced by a better concept, a better mode of support for the film industry, and FLICs are an interesting idea. As we have them at the moment in the bill, they could not constitute an adequate replacement, but we are not going to oppose the bill, because this trial of FLICs is the only positive initiative around. We are disappointed with it. We think it could have been more imaginative. It could have done substantially more than it has. I agree with the industry's pessimism and the fact that the industry is dubious about it. I understand why, but it is the only concept around. It is a concept worth a try, so not only will we agree with the passage of the legislation but we will also commit, as we have already committed, to allowing the trial to continue for the two years set down by the government, in order to ensure that whoever comes in to take up this trial has the guarantee that the terms on which they invest their money will not change during the period of the trial that they undertake.There are some serious concerns about whether the FLIC proposal as outlined will work, in terms of the timing; the availability of the money; the perceived inadequacy of the tax benefit—being substantially less than David Gonski recommended; and the consequential and—as seen by those in the industry, at least—unnecessarily adverse impact of the capital gains tax on people who make their investments through film licensed investment companies.We approach this bill with some apprehension as to whether it is going to do anything to fill the very substantial gap that has been created, but it is the only step around. To the extent that it succeeds, it will be a step in the right direction, and so it should not be opposed. I have moved our amendment to the second reading motion. Because of the advice we have with regard to the government's desired timetable for dealing with the bill, I will not speak any longer but simply indicate that we will not be seeking to consider the bill in detail or in any way to delay its passage. We hope that FLICs are very successful, even though we are less than optimistic.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Is the amendment seconded?3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—I second the amendment.11:20:004191Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It has been an interesting process to listen to the approval of the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), on behalf of those opposite, of the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 . I think that at the very end of the day, when all is said and done, there is approval from the Labor Party for the government's measures contained within this bill—with a tonne of qualifications. If the member for Canberra is to be believed as far as takers for the FLIC concept are concerned—he did say that there probably will be takers—the bottom line is, by his figures, $27 million out of the Australian film industry and $40 million into it—$40 million worth of investment. That is really what this bill will be encouraging.Opposition members interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—There is no cultural cringe on this side. We do not believe for a moment that Australian film or television productions are second rate or need to be the by-products of some sort of sheltered workshop. We believe that people will take up the challenges contained within this legislation, because they will see Australian film and television products as commercially viable and capable of returning on investment. The good old basic principle of ROI will generate the investment and there will be a return. We see this on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis in this country, where the film industry is reaching the maturity to be able to generate, on a very constant basis, respectable films and films which also go on to be commercially viable and which win awards in international fora.For so many reasons the government's bill before us is a worthwhile pilot scheme and a shot in the arm for the film industry, to generate the real support that it needs in order to be viable without simply being part of the government's ongoing program. We would all, on this side, like to be putting more money into matters such as the film and television industry and the arts. I note with some personal consternation the decline in the commercial television production fund announced in the recent budget—such a decline is something that I have fought against and would have hoped did not happen—but I am pleased that the Expenditure Review Committee did, in its wisdom, see the importance of supporting the SBSI production fund. That in itself is an indication of just how well returned the investments of SBSI as seed money for productions have been.I am pleased similarly by the treatment of the Australian Film Finance Corporation, a government funded instrumentality which has financed movies like Shine, Muriel's Wedding, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Strictly Ballroom, four movies which have gone on to be huge commercial successes. The Film Finance Corporation continues to generate a great deal of government support based on the simple fact that returns do come in strong waves on the basic seed money investments provided by the taxpayer. What the bills before us today are saying is that we believe the commercial viability of the industry is there, it is well pronounced, it is well established and people will want to be a part of it.The fact that the government has taken the Gonski review's recommendations to bring about this FLIC concept is a good thing, but we have decided also to ensure that certainty is there for the industry by retaining the 10BA provision within the tax act. Another matter that Gonski reported on, although it was only a line or two, was the fact that the existing taxation act—I think it is at section 51(1)—gives tax concessions to Australians who invest in films offshore, as overseas investment. I do not remember hearing anybody opposite talk about the need for taxation reform this morning, but there is another example of the need for taxation reform. There is no doubt in my mind that if we are, as a taxpaying nation, going to reward people who invest in industries offshore, there is something a little bit astray. There is a lot of need to look at taxation reform for this industry alone.What is really at the heart of all of this is that the money—which is basically seed money—that the government is putting into the production film and television programs is a very cheap shout. Any amounts of money the government puts in tend to give some serious returns on investment. If we could find another $10 million and shoot it off somewhere, perhaps into commercial television production funds and so forth, it would be well regarded and greeted—the returns and the results would certainly be there—but I would find it very hard to look pensioners in my electorate of Moreton in the eye and say that, in spite of the Labor Party's debt and the resulting fact that we have been left a critical problem in repaying that debt, we could still find excessive amounts of money for an area where the private sector could be investing without the public purse having to be opened for it.What the government is saying in the form of this bill, and what the debate before us has become, is that we have a great deal of confidence in the commercial viability of our film industry. I certainly would like to see the government be more generous in assisting the film and television industries. I think we are also sending the signal to the industries that we want you to go on and continue to prove yourselves to be commercially viable. It is a pilot scheme that is before us. To be fair, it would be my assessment that perhaps we might be making them struggle a bit more than some would like. Nevertheless, out of that will come the results that we would all like—that is, a continuation of the growth and of the real investment, the commercially viable investment, that is producing results in this important sector. I commend the bill to the House.11:26:004192Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—in reply—What we are talking about today is the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 . Firstly, the second reading amendment moved by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) does not decline passage, but obviously we would reject the sentiments expressed in his speech and the reason for his amendment. I would want to commend this bill to the chamber. It establishes a new pilot program and the government does recognise the importance of an active, innovative and vibrant Australian film industry, both on cultural and economic grounds.The establishment of the film licensed investment company is primarily to provide a 100 per cent tax deduction. As I said in my second reading speech in the main chamber, we estimate that in the first year somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million forgone income will be available. Over a two-year period we are expecting something like $40 million to be available for new films by the avenue of this tax deduction.It complements other activities that the government is pursuing in support of the film industry: the continuation of section 10BA, which in our broad estimate is about $20 million a year in forgone income for those that make use of that section of the taxation act, plus we support the Australian Film Commission, Film Australia, the Film Finance Corporation, the national film archives and the film and television school. The total effort in support of film and television in this country from the government on behalf of taxpayers is somewhere in the vicinity of $100 million. This bill, as a result of an excellent report by Mr David Gonski, one of the leading commercial lawyers and practitioners in this country, will lead to the trial of this innovative film licensed investment company.My colleague the member for Canberra and shadow minister mentioned the commercial television production fund. He should remember that that was started by his own government. That was a three-year program—it had a sunset—and it came into being at a time when the commercial television industry was suffering quite a considerable reduction in profits. That is not the case now—it is seeing somewhere in the vicinity of about half a billion dollars in profits annually. It was to address that particular issue at the time, it was worth somewhere in the vicinity of $14 million and the government does not believe it ought to be continuing that program. This is a far better way to proceed to support innovative, Australian focused films, and we are all culturally enriched by it and it is sensible to do what we are doing. I have pleasure in commending the bill.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider this bill in detail I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4193r5264193Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.11:30:004193Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—in reply—To complete the issue mentioned, this bill is the companion to the one we have just considered, the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 , and it amends the Income Tax (Assessment) Act 1997 to authorise the 100 per cent tax deduction for amounts paid to subscribe for shares in a film licensed investment company. FLIC shareholders will get a deduction for share subscriptions paid during the period of the licence, and the cost base of their shares will be reduced by the amount of the relevant deduction. The deduction is not allowable until the shares have been fully paid and issued to the shareholders. Obviously, the bill is a necessary companion to give effect to the scheme that was proposed in the principal bill. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—If no member wishes to consider this bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4194r5314194Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Gareth Evans moved by way of amendment: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".11:31:004194Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Firstly, I want to say that I have spoken, I believe, to all the 14 appropriation bills in the time that I have been a member in this place, but this is the first time that we have had a truncated period for members' speeches on an appropriation bill.I can understand the desire of the government to get the bills through this House and to open themselves up to the opportunity for an early election. But probably there is no more important government document brought down than the budget, and the consequential appropriation bills. As I say, this is the first time I have had to limit what I wanted to say.The Australian people are somewhat disappointed in both the government and the opposition to the extent that neither side seems capable of giving credit to the other for anything positive that may have been done and, in a sense, each is always trying to score debating points. Let me give you an example. One of the key features of this budget was, of course, the so-called surplus, and the fact that we are back in the black. The government members, of course, talk about the so-called $10 billion black hole left by Labor. The opposition members for their part say, `Let us remember that it was Prime Minister Howard who, as Treasurer in 1983, left us a $9.6 billion black hole that the Treasury had advised him of.' In modern-day dollars, this equates to $23 to $24 billion. Ordinary people really get dismayed about this sort of point scoring. They have an expectation that both the government and the opposition, in the way they conduct themselves in parliament, would be working assiduously towards what is seen as the best interest of ordinary Australians. I apologise that I am probably going to disappoint people somewhat in my contribution, but I think that it is an unfortunate aspect that we are not able to give any credit at all.The other point that I will make is that one of the contributions of the outgoing Labor government was that we had laid the basis for, and had already achieved, a low inflationary environment. I would say congratulations to this government for continuing that work, although I have some reservations about their methodology.In my electorate one of the highest priorities is what is happening about jobs and unemployment. I must say that this affects me very directly. We can have, I like to say, a bit of a sniffle in the eastern suburbs but that often translates to pneumonia back in my electorate. I like to follow these things very keenly and I have a passion about those issues in the parliament that lead to higher rates of growth and higher job numbers. I think one of the disappointing statistics of the government is that if you compare the job growth in the Howard economy over two years or 26 months with the last 26 months of the Labor government, you see that John Howard has achieved 236,000 jobs being created; under Labor, that was 550,000. The difference is that there are 314,000 fewer jobs in the economy than if that same growth had continued over those two years. There are 314,000 of our fellow Australians who might otherwise have been in employment.I suppose that we would say that the average growth in the economy over three years for us was 4.4 per cent. There are some on the Labor side—and I confess I am one of them—who argue for even higher growth and complain bitterly that our economy develops an economic hardening of the arteries if you do go for that higher growth because we then seem to suck in more imports. Whilst I recognise that as a barrier, I certainly believe there are a range of policies we can develop to overcome that. In two years, John Howard's GDP average growth rate has been 2.7 per cent. If you look at the average rate of employment, on the Labor side over three years it was 2.8 per cent and it was 1.2 per cent on the government side.I am not one who says that part-time jobs are not real jobs. I recognise that there are some significant changes in the work force and I value full-time jobs and part-time jobs. But I think there is an interesting and stark difference in the number of full-time jobs in the last 26 months of Labor compared with the number under the coalition government. There were 330,000 full-time jobs under Labor and 118,000 under the Liberal government. I certainly like to see plenty of full-time jobs being created—and would like to see many more, but I do not deprecate part-time jobs.The other issue that I am a little concerned about is the suggestion that there is a firewall now being developed in the Australian economy such that we will be largely unaffected by the Asian meltdown. I sincerely hope that this claim is true but I regret that I do not really believe that this will be the case. I do not want to dwell too long on the Asian meltdown; I want only to make a few points. The way Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia, in particular, are going to be able to work their way through the meltdown is certainly through some structural changes within their own economies, and we note those have been taking place. But really it will be through net exports. The one country in the world capable of taking more exports or making an impact on that strategy is, of course, the United States. Let me say I hope optimistically that the American Congress will see the bigger picture in relation to that. However, there have been, I think, sufficient signs the other way not to be overly optimistic about how that might come about.I really regret to say that it is looking like interest rates are going to rise by the end of this year. While low interest rates certainly help and fuel the economy, different people are able to take advantage of that in different ways. For example, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) is always very effusive about the benefits to those who are buying their homes, and that is absolutely and certainly true. However, they constitute only about 25 per cent of the people in the economy. What are the benefits of low interest rates to renters in the electorate of Macquarie or the electorate of Chifley? I think you would be hard pressed to say that we have seen declining rents as a result of that. All I am trying to say is that I accept that—0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—Is a low interest rate a bad thing?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I think it is a good thing, but I am trying to make the point that different people are able to take advantage of that in different ways, and a low rate benefits some sectors more than others. However, I think interest rates are soon going to rise. I know the government is going to announce a tax package, a feature of which will be the GST. If I am correct in suspecting that interest rates are going to rise by the end of the year, there is no doubt that in the first 18 months to two years after the introduction of a GST you will get a huge spurt of inflation.The member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) shakes his head but I have to say that that has been the experience to date. If there are some magical economic whiz-bangs that he has to share with the House and every other economist in the land, I must say I wait with bated breath to hear from him. But, as I say, there will be an inflationary spurt and it will damp down the economy.I find it difficult to accept that the unemployment figure will not rise. Getting unemployment down to 7.9 per cent is good, but it is one month's figure only. A measure we need to look at is the discouraged work force figure. If the discouraged work force figure is going down at the same time—and it is very hard to get accurate estimates of that; I concede that—as the unemployment rate then yes, you can be very confident, but I think you are finding they are moving in opposite directions. So, towards the end of this year I regret to say that unemployment will be greater.I want now to talk about the budget surplus. There have been quite significant cutbacks in spending on aged care, health, child care and education. Of course, there is a debate between the two political parties about that. On the Labor side we say that if we had been able to sustain the higher growth rate then perhaps the savage cutbacks need not have been so deep and so hurtful and we could have both arrived at the same surplus. We certainly contend that. We say that yes, there has been a budget surplus. We say that yes, having budget surpluses are worth while, but you really do need to survey the damage.Given more time I would have liked to recount to the House the damage in the electorate of Chifley, which I have to say is extensive. However, I will leave it there.11:44:004196Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—One of the interesting things to watch in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 has been the nitpicking of many in the opposition as they go scratching around for something negative to say. That has been quite a challenge for them because overwhelmingly this is a good budget, a good news budget, and the opposition does not like good news.I will just refer to something the member for Chifley (Mr Price) said towards the end of his contribution. He spoke about cutbacks to a number of areas. Let me remind him of the figures: health—this budget compared to the last year of Labor—up by $3,640 million; nursing homes, up by $536 million; schools, up by $740 million; and hospitals, up by $1,244 million. These are not cutbacks but, in fact, increases.In thinking of what to focus on in the few short minutes this morning, it was hard to know where to start because there are so many bright spots in this budget. In fact, even in looking for a succinct media comment, it was difficult to choose because so many of the comments were so positive. Let me quote a couple to sum it up. The editorial in the Financial Review on the day following the budget stated:Peter Costello should be applauded for a budget that promises to deliver Canberra's first genuine surplus since 1990-1991. Without increasing tax rates, the Howard government has now largely repaired the fiscal blowout of the late Keating years.The Daily Telegraph editorial on the same day stated:Peter Costello's third budget is, as promised, a responsible document which lays the ground work for a secure economy in uncertain times.There is also Steven Kates's economic comment in the Canberra Times of the same day that:This is a budget which is as good as it gets. In this world of woe, it is seldom that one finds anything that does everything right, but this budget comes awfully close.We could go on, almost ad infinitum. Much has been said of the three-year switch from the $10.3 billion black hole left by Labor to the $2.7 billion surplus. This is a remarkable achievement. It has been done without increasing taxes. In fact, it has been done while fulfilling the coalition's promised $1 billion family tax reduction package.What is the impact of this switch from deficit to surplus? It is not just economic theory. It is not just economic rationalism. There are real benefits for the Australian community. We are starting to pay off Labor's debt. We are tearing up Labor's bankcard and lifting the millstone that Labor had put around the necks of our children. In its last five years in government, Commonwealth debt blew out alarmingly from $17 billion to $96 billion, from 4.4 per cent of GDP to 19.5 per cent of GDP. This budget turns the corner and starts the long process of debt reduction.By the end of this year, this will almost be halved to 11.2 per cent of GDP, with ongoing falls in the years after that. This brings obvious and tangible benefits to the community. This is the whole point of the removal of the deficit, and the whole point of the debt reduction. Four clear benefits stand out to any that want to look at them.Firstly, instead of taxpayers' money going to pay interest on past extravagance, it can start to be used again to provide essential services. We had reached the ridiculous point under Labor where close to $9 billion a year was going down the drain in interest payments on Labor's accumulated debt. We had reached the point where new borrowing was going largely to pay off the interest on past debt—money that would have been better spent on schools, on hospitals, on roads. I am sure even the member for Chifley would appreciate that. By sorting out Labor's vicious circle of debt and interest, taxpayers' money will at last be able to go again to providing those essential services in greater amounts.Secondly, it puts downward pressure on domestic interest rates. One of the consequences of Labor's high debt policy was the upward pressure it put on interest rates. In March 1996, the international premium on Australian interest rates, the 10-year bond rate, was 2.16 per cent over the US rate. That is the premium for risk. It is now zero—in fact, slightly less than zero. That two per cent was a premium for risk. A premium because, with Labor, the country's stability was at risk. With Labor, there is always a risk. It was a premium paid by Australian business and paid by Australian home buyers.The result of this government's fiscal responsibility has been the reduction in interest rates. For home buyers and small business, rates are the lowest that they have been for over 30 years. Small business rates have dropped from 11 per cent two years ago to 7.7 per cent, and mortgage rates from 10.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent. For the average mortgage holder, that 3.8 per cent reduction in interest rates means a monthly saving of around $300—that is, $300 more in their pocket each month because of the policies of the coalition government. I can tell you that the 13,500 home buyers in the electorate of Macquarie are delighted with this good news. They are $300 a month better off under this government than they were under Labor, and far better off than they would be under a return to Labor which would see their interest rates skyrocket once again.Thirdly, this budget sets the stage for sustainable growth—not built on the boom-bust cycle of Labor, not built on the house of cards of unsustainable borrowing, not built on high interest rates, but built on low interest rates, low inflation and high private sector investment, which will guarantee long-term growth and long-term growth in jobs. This is sustainable growth, which is the key to employment growth. The Australian Financial Review said on 13 May:The budget has gone a long way towards nailing down sound structural policy on which to grow the economy and to produce more jobs, lower interest rates and higher incomes.More jobs, lower interest rates and higher incomes will be to the benefit of all in Australia.Fourthly, having the budget back in surplus has helped protect Australia from the financial turmoil in Asia. Virtually every financial commentator has acknowledged the importance of this. Allow me to give just two examples. Terry McCrann wrote, in the Daily Telegraph the day after the budget:Eliminating debt will also provide a buffer for Australia against the cold winds that will continue to blow from the rest of the world.David Barnett wrote in the Australian Financial Review on the same day:Australians should be grateful that they don't live in South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia or the Philippines or any of the other tiger economies of South East Asia.They should also be grateful that they no longer live in a country run by Bob Hawke or Paul Keating.Over the past three years the Coalition government has transformed the Australian economy into one which for the first time in our history is able to withstand an international financial crisis.Who are the beneficiaries of this careful, sound, responsible management? All Australians and especially the battlers.This is something the opposition seem to overlook. We have heard much bleating from the other side about there being nothing in this budget for the battlers, yet it is these very people who are most protected by the security, safety and stability this budget brings. Who do the opposition think would be the first to suffer if the Australian dollar was sold down the drain, if interest rates went through the roof or if we were plunged into another recession as we may well have been if Labor still had its hand on the tiller. It is the battlers who would be most vulnerable.Who would be the first to lose their jobs? Who would be in most danger of remaining out of work, of becoming long-term unemployed? It would be the blue-collar workers. Who would find it hardest to meet the higher mortgage payments? It would be the low income earners. Those opposite can feign all the concern they like, but the harsh reality is that it was their incompetence that threw so many out of work in the worst recession in over 60 years. It was their incompetence which gave us mortgage rates of 17 per cent and cost many battling home buyers their homes. It was their incompetence which sent thousands of small businesses to the wall. And it was their incompetence which would again wreak havoc if they were given half a chance.In the short remaining time I would like to mention briefly two or three highlights of the budget detail. These are initiatives which are largely aimed at helping the aged in our community. Firstly, the extension of the gold health card to another 50,000 World War II veterans is a most commendable step. At the cost of $500 million over the next four years, this is very appropriate recognition of the sacrifice that these people made for our country and the ill health that many of them have incurred as a result.Secondly, the $280 million staying at home package provides extra assistance for the frail aged who would rather remain in their own homes than enter residential care. Thirdly, the provision of the seniors health card to an additional 220,000 independent retirees is a just recognition of the efforts that they have made over their life to save for their own retirement. Fourthly, the provision of full indexation of pensions to 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings builds in protection and growth for our pensioner community.In the budget there is the continuation of many other initiatives that the government has already put in place—the continuation of the terrific new apprenticeship scheme, of national literacy plans, of increased health expenditure, of preventative health measures and of the assault on drugs. Time does not allow me to go through the full list of benefits in this budget.In conclusion I return to the central theme of what I have said. In addition to the positive impact of many individual programs, the significant benefit of this budget for all Australians is that the country is back on track, that we are now finally living within our means, that we have lifted the vicious cycle of debt and high interest rates from the shoulders of our children.The job is only partly done. It would be a grave mistake to think that the job is complete. Responsible management is not a dispensable luxury, responsible management is not an occasional nuisance. Responsible management is an ongoing necessity. To even contemplate a return to the economic vandalism of Labor would be unthinkable and would jeopardise the hard fought gains we have won. There is much yet to be done to build the security, safety and stability the country needs, the security, safety and stability for which our children will thank us.11:55:004199Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I could not help noticing the message on my desk calendar the day the Treasurer (Mr Costello) delivered the budget, on 12 May. It came from Havelock Ellis:The sun, moon and stars would have disappeared long ago had they been within the reach of predatory human hands.We have certainly seen some predatory human hands on the part of the government this past two years. Since taking office, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and his henchmen have taken the sun, the moon and the stars from the Australians who need them most and, in this budget, they have given back a tiny little candle, a moon shadow and not even a glimmer of hope. Now, of course, they want, if re-elected, to sell the sun, the moon and the stars.With this budget we have seen the emergence of the government's new mantra, which was being quoted by the previous member: safety, security and stability. I am not an uncharitable person by nature and I am prepared to concede to the government safety. I have continually supported the Prime Minister's actions against semiautomatic weapons. The spate of killings by mere children in American schools recently reminds us of the tragedy that awaits any community that develops a culture of gun ownership. But security and stability? Well, the Liberal Party's claims to these would, in Paul Keating's famous words, `make a cat laugh'.Security? The sacking by Patrick of its entire work force, with no regard for their individual work performance, simply because, in Prime Minister Howard's words, they were all union members, did more damage to job security in this country than any other single event for many years. The Prime Minister's reaction to this was to slap on the back the architect of the sacking of 1,400 decent workers—the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith).It is Labor which has moved to reinstate job security in this nation with our Employment Security Bill 1998 . We intend to amend the Workplace Relations Act so that employees who have been unlawfully sacked by an insolvent employer can be reinstated in their jobs to related companies that are solvent. We intend to amend the Workplace Relations Act and the Corporations Law to ensure that employees who are owed legal entitlements by insolvent employers, such as holiday pay, long service leave, redundancy pay, can seek payment from related companies which are solvent. We will amend the Corporations Law to give employees, not just the receiver, the power to sue directors of failed companies for debts owed to them following breaches of the Corporations Law. So Labor is acting to give workers security from Patrick style corporate scams. If the government had the slightest regard for security it would be supporting such legislation.Stability? Now that has just got to be the Prime Minister's well-known knee-slapping brand of humour. Stability—from a government which has lost I think it is seven ministers and parliamentary secretaries: Senator Short, Senator Gibson, the member for Forrest (Mr Prosser), the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the member for Hume (Mr Sharp) and the member for Fadden (Mr Jull). Have I left anybody out? Stability—from the government which has lost its Deputy President, Senator Colston, and its Speaker, now the member for Casey (Mr Halverson). It has lost the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Grahame Morris. All gone.Just this year, three government members have crossed the floor: the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) and the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith). We now find that there are six MPs with a Liberal pedigree sitting on the crossbenches. You cannot move an inch in the chamber without tripping over a former Howard government minister or a former Liberal MP turned Independent. If you took them all out of the chamber, the House would have trouble achieving a quorum. I know the Speaker has had his staff checking the noise levels around the chamber. Maybe he should have them checking out, while they are at it, whether there are odour levels on the Liberal Party side. Stability—from a government which has had the greatest attrition level since the Stalin cabinet of the 1920s.The government spends a lot of time in self-serving, smug self-congratulation concerning its economic performance, but you do not hear too much about some of what I believe to be very important indicators of economic health and wellbeing in our nation. You do not hear anything about bankruptcies, but they have skyrocketed since the change of government: from around 4,000 per quarter at the time of the change of government, to around 6,000 per quarter now—an increase in the order of 50 per cent. You no longer hear much about foreign debt; it was about $180 billion at the time of the change of government, and we all remember the debt truck. Now it is at an all-time record of $222 billion—worse than ever, but you do not see the debt truck.You do not hear too much about the value of the dollar. As the Treasurer arrives in New York, it slips to its lowest value in 12 years. I am not saying it slips to its lowest value in 12 years because the Treasurer arrives in New York, but you know what the Liberal Party would be saying if this were occurring under a Labor government: they would be telling us that the sky was falling.You also no longer hear much about the current account deficit. I take people back to Prime Minister Howard's statement on 20 September 1995: `As Peter Costello and I have made repeatedly clear, our first priority in government economically will be to tackle the current account deficit.' But what has happened? Looking at the figures, the current account deficit is expected to blow out from $18 billion in 1996-97 to $31 billion in 1998-99: $18 billion to $31 billion. The Australian dollar is under attack from foreign speculators. Consumption spending is growing faster than national production. The growth of private investment is dropping, and the ratio of household savings to household disposable income is falling: from 4.7 per cent in 1996-97 to an estimated 2.8 per cent in 1998-99.Ken Davidson concludes that the serious issue today is not the budget deficit but the current account blow-out, made worse in Australia and East Asia by the huge volume of speculative capital washing around the globe. But it is not simply Ken Davidson taking this view. Earlier this week in the Courier-Mail, Tim Hughes, a director of Value Capital Management, in a discussion about the current account deficit concluded that our current account problem is likely to be both deeper and longer than what he refers to as the `official family'—the government, Treasury and the Reserve Bank—currently expects, because it has much more to do with our domestic economic circumstances than they currently believe.On those important indicators of economic health and wellbeing, this government is failing. And on that most important indicator, unemployment, it is also failing. The youth unemployment rate is still half a percentage point higher than it was when John Howard was elected, despite his election eve promise that his highest priority would be to make major inroads on youth unemployment. The reduction in the unemployment rate since the Howard government took office is smaller than the reduction in the participation rate during the same period—indicating that many unemployed have simply become discouraged and have given up looking for work. During Labor's last 26 months, total jobs growth was of the order of 550,000. During this government's first 26 months, total jobs growth was of the order of 235,000—less than half of Labor's rate of job creation.The other thing that ought to be said about the budget is that it has pretty much disappeared without trace—firstly, because there is not a lot in it; and, secondly, because people are waiting for the real budget, the real economic statement. That will occur, of course, when the government does the nation the courtesy of announcing its tax reform package. But we can know some things already. Firstly, a GST will make life much more difficult for families. For families with young children, we find that baby clothes, nappies—both disposable and cloth—prams, cots, car safety seats, capsules, all those things which are currently exempt from sales tax, will have a GST. And when the children go to school, we will find that schoolbooks and textbooks, uniforms, sporting gear, stationery, school bags, school fees, canteen food, public transport fares—all those things which are presently free from any kind of tax—will be subject to GST. So raising a family is going to become more expensive under the present government.Beyond that, we see the impact of GST on small business. It was interesting this week to see Collette Dinnigan, the new head of the New South Wales Small Business Development Corporation, pointing out the problems for small business which will need to document their trade and for which a GST will simply mean more paperwork. She says:I saw it when it was introduced in New Zealand. A lot of small businesses suffered because of the extra paperwork.Interestingly, Collette Dinnigan also attacks the government concerning its proposals for superannuation choice, and she says:Employees being allowed to choose their own super fund had left employers with more work.That is the situation for small business generally, but specifically, retail tenants and franchisees face the prospect of a GST on commercial rents. For example, if you have a small business in a large shopping centre and you are paying out, quite typically, $150,000 in rent and outgoings, the 10 per cent GST means that you will have to pay $165,000 in rent and outgoings. If you are a franchisee, you will find that an average franchise fee is of the order of $50,000, and you will have to pay $55,000 under a 10 per cent GST. That could be an extra $20,000 that you will have to find from somewhere in order to simply exist. It is no good saying to these businesses that you are going to reduce the level of company tax. The level of company tax applies when you make a profit. People have to make a profit before that is an issue, and they will not be able to under these arrangements.A GST is also going to seriously hit a number of important sectors in relation to employment. Econtech did some modelling for the Business Review Weekly which was published recently. It suggested that hotels, cafes and restaurants will have employment down by 4.4 per cent; cultural and recreational services, such as tour operators and gyms, will have their employment down by six per cent; and personal services, such as law and the like, will have their employment down by 1.2 per cent. They say that employment in the financial services area will go up. That is, of course, on the assumption that financial services are going to be exempt. The government is saying, `We are not going to exempt health, or education, or food, but we are going to exempt financial services.' If they suggested that financial services were to be covered by a GST, you would see an awful lot of people who are presently advocating a GST running a mile.Finally, the GST is going to go up. We can see this from overseas experience. Germany introduced the GST at 10 per cent and its current standard rate is now 15 per cent. Mexico also introduced a GST at 10 per cent; its current standard rate is 15 per cent. New Zealand introduced a GST at 10 per cent and its rate is now 12.5 per cent. The United Kingdom introduced a rate of 10 per cent; they are now up to 17.5 per cent. And similarly, for countries which introduced GST at other levels: Austria is up from 16 to 20 per cent; Ireland is up from 16.4 to 21 per cent; Italy is up from 12 to 19 per cent; Spain is up from 12 to 16 per cent; and so it goes on. One thing we can be sure of is that the GST level which gets introduced is not the final rate of GST which people are going to have to pay. We need from this government the courtesy of their announcing their GST model, their tax reform model, so that the public can debate these things and understand precisely what it is they are voting for.To conclude, the most recent desk calendar note reads:The sign of intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by the application of reason.Regrettably, when we look at this budget and what the government is saying about their economic performance, we do not have reason. We simply have a treasurer offering excuses.12:10:004202Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—At the commencement of my speech I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate 17-year-old Alana Delcanho of Dianella in my electorate of Stirling who has become the first Western Australian to win the national Lions Youth of the Year award. Alana is head girl of Carmel School. She beat 3,500 other competitors to win the Youth of the Year award and I think her extraordinary efforts deserve to be recognised in the national parliament. I also take the opportunity to wish Alana well in her tertiary exams. I note she is considering a career in politics or journalism and in either choice she makes I am sure she will improve the standards of the profession.I welcome the fact that Australia is now in surplus. We were told three years ago by the then minister for finance, now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand (Mr Kim Beazley) that our nation was in surplus and would continue to be in surplus, but as we all know—and the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) has now finally admitted this—Australia was in fact in deficit. The reply to the budget from the Leader of the Opposition revealed how confused he and the Opposition are—if not confused then certainly duplicitous. They went to the election in 1996 telling the Australian people we were in surplus. The few policies the Labor Party went to the 1996 election with were offered on the basis that Australia was in surplus.By all accounts, prior to March 1996 it was accepted that Australia was in surplus and the government of the day gave no indication that we were not. However, when we listened to the response of the Leader of the Opposition to the budget, he was telling us how he would have dealt with the deficit. His deputy the member for Holt proposed a second reading amendment, the third point of which is: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.How can they go to the people prior to an election telling them the nation is in surplus and then after the election tell those same people they would have better dealt with the deficit they bequeathed the new government? This in itself exemplifies the dishonesty and duplicity of the Australian Labor Party. Only the coalition has been honest with the Australian people in telling them the true state of the books and offering an honest program to fix the problem. It is little wonder the Australian Labor Party was so opposed to the charter of budget honesty. They knew that such a charter would expose them for the hypocrites and deceivers that they are.The Leader of the Opposition made much of a newspaper caricature of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) the day after the budget, depicting him as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz. On the contrary, I would suggest that it is the Labor Party living in fantasy land. It is a fantasy of theirs that Australia was in surplus. It is a fantasy that they could fix the deficit and it is a fantasy that they can deliver real tax reform.The opposition has also been dismissive of the government's attempts to repay debt. At this stage I should declare a vested interest in the government repaying debt. Each time I come to this place from Perth I need to be prised away from my two grandchildren aged four and one. It is for their generation that our government needs to repay Labor's debt and by paying off that debt today we will leave the future generations a better standard of living than a legacy of debt. It means that our children and their children will have lower interest rates on which to purchase their homes; it means small business can spend less on interest repayments and more on their businesses; and it means the government can use the taxpayers' money on taxpayers and not on paying interest on their debt. But quite selfishly, Labor could not care less about future generations. Their idea of the future is just to the next election and absolutely no further.I would like to talk a bit about private health insurance. It is obvious that more needs to be done to attract people into private health and insurance. I told the House the other day that I did a survey in my electorate and it found that 83.1 per cent of respondents—over 5,000 respondents—wanted greater incentives to take out private health insurance. Labor has made this into their political football but look at the facts. They had 13 years in office and watched the membership fall to way below 40 per cent, the level at which Graham Richardson said if it fell lower the system was in trouble. They did nothing to encourage people into private health insurance. They were willing to offer welfare to the rich, to the millionaires and billionaires, but they would not offer incentives to low and middle income earners to take out private health insurance and this is the reason for hospital waiting lists. Labor's philosophical bankruptcy prohibited it from providing those necessary incentives to keep the pressure off the public system by balancing both private and public health. The challenge is now up to Labor to tell the Australian people what incentives they will offer to take out private health insurance. Or will they let the system crumble, which will be at the expense of pensioners and low income earners?I also take the opportunity to talk about tax reform. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that Labor would stick with the 1930s system we have. They will keep the wholesale sales tax—they are sticking with a system that suited a different time and a different economy. I note that Holden Australia had all their cars ever made on show this week from the first model to their most recent—all excellent vehicles—and it reminds me of Labor's tax policy compared with ours. The Labor policy is like the old FJ, while ours is the latest VT Commodore. Labor would rather have the early model. Back when it was made it was appropriate for the time but today is cumbersome and obsolete. Our tax system today is obsolete. It is a tax system of and for the 1930s. Labor's tax policy is a very rusty old FJ and it makes our economy uncompetitive and stagnant. In saying Labor will keep the wholesale sales tax, Labor members are telling exporters that they will tax exports, that they will still make our nation less competitive with our foreign competitors. They will keep on taxing jobs. Labor's heart bleeds for the unemployed but they are happy to announce that they will tax jobs.Labor is a 1930s party that is living in the 1990s. It is a party bereft of ideas, afraid of change and reluctant to make the right, honest decisions. Our budget has complemented the last two budgets to deliver a road map for the future that Australians can look forward to with pride. On the contrary, all that Labor offers are speed humps and roundabouts for our road map which takes Australia in the right direction.Finally, I want to raise a matter of particular concern, especially to ms and to other Western Australians, involving the Western Australian branch of the RSL. The state executive is the Western Australian state management committee of the RSL, an organisation which represents the interests of veterans, ex-service and RSL members. Mr Jack Babbage is a constituent who is a Vietnam veteran, an ex-serviceman of 20 years service, and is in his 11th year as a member of the RSL, with six of those years having been served on the state executive. Mr Babbage has an extensive portfolio of community commitment both within and outside the electorate of Stirling which is as a result of his adherence to the concept of service. He alleges that in March 1997, Mr Tony Kent of the state executive wrote a letter of complaint about Mr Babbage and took out a restraining order which was issued against Mr Babbage by two police officers at the March 1997 meeting of the state executive, an act which disrupted the meeting.Mr Babbage contends that the restraining order: denied him of his liberty; deprived him of his right to attend state executive and subcommittee hearings; created an inference of wrong doing; caused humiliation and embarrassment; and had a detrimental effect upon him and his family by causing unwarranted and unplanned expense, inconvenience, offence and severe stress. He believes that the allegations made in both the letter of complaint and the restraining order were untrue.In September 1997 Mr Babbage was totally exonerated by Mr Murphy, the state president of the Western Australian branch of the RSL, of any allegation of wrong doing. Indeed, it was emphasised that there was no blemish against his character. Given that vindication, and as Mr Babbage was innocent of any wrong doing, Mr Babbage believes that Mr Kent should have been made to account for his actions.He has endeavoured to alert the members of the state executive to his treatment. One member, Mr Graham Edwards, a former Labor member of the Western Australian Legislative Council and the endorsed Labor candidate for the federal parliamentary seat of Cowan—more than ably represented today by our friend and colleague, Mr Richard Evans—informed Mr Babbage earlier this year that he did not want to know and that he was too busy with other issues to worry about it.Mr Edwards has shown the electors of Cowan that he has learned nothing from the errors of the Burke, Dowding and Lawrence governments of which he was a senior member. What's more, Mr Edwards has shown the electors of Cowan what they could expect if he were, by some miracle—which I highly doubt—to be elected at the next federal election.On 20 and 21 January this year, a meeting of the RSL National Appeal Tribunal, the NAT, was convened in Anzac House in Perth to hear an appeal initiated by Mr Babbage against the decision made by the state executive. Overall, the NAT ruled in favour of Mr Babbage, vindicating his view that he had been unfairly treated by the state executive. In accordance with the principles of accountable and open management, I believe that the members of the Western Australian branch of the RSL have a right to know what is occurring in the management of the state branch of the RSL, and I believe Mr Babbage has been a victim of an injustice.12:19:004205Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I rise to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 because I have a real, deep and abiding belief that the needs of Australians, and in particular the Tasmanians living in my electorate of Franklin, are not being met by the Howard Liberal government.The third Howard budget brought down on 12 May leaves the Tasmanian economy struggling. In no way does it contribute a solution or even a light on the horizon for the unemployed, families, women, people with disabilities, people who seek an education, families in need of child-care facilities, people who require aged care, and many of the veterans who live in my electorate. To hear those opposite speak, one would assume that during the period 1983 to 1996 everything that possibly could go wrong, went wrong. Australians had apparently lived in the land of evil during that period but with the coming of the Howard Liberal government in 1996 the whole country was transformed into the Promised Land. What a ridiculous assertion!Those opposite would have you believe that, because they have delivered low interest rates and that inflation is at an all time low, everything in the garden is rosy. Contrary to the propaganda being put out by Senator Calvert, as he attempts to assist my opponent in the lead-up to the next federal election, this budget does nothing for the jobs in the Tasmanian economy and nothing for jobs in my electorate of Franklin. Franklin has pockets of high unemployment, way above the state average and far above the national average. In all honesty, there appear to be no meaningful prospects of improving the opportunities for any of the unemployed out of the conservative and lacklustre budget introduced by the Treasurer on 12 May this year.Commonwealth investment in Tasmania has been reduced significantly since 1996. The reduction in Commonwealth spending in Tasmania has not been balanced by an increase in private spending. When one examines the equation of privatisation and contracting out, there is always a diminution of corporate spending; always fewer jobs and, as a result, fewer dollars available for spending by the citizens of Tasmania.Figures show that money is not being spent building homes or buying houses. New home starts in Tasmania have been at a low level for two years. The property market is a buyers market, but there are no buyers. To become a buyer one needs a job and new jobs of any sort are a rarity in my state and my electorate. When it comes to the issues of housing and employment and unemployment, I would like to raise a concern which has been forgotten by this government: this is the problem faced by families who are purchasing their own homes and now find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed.In my state of Tasmania, and I would imagine in all other states of Australia, there are families who have a reasonable equity in their houses and are now under threat. This is because their unemployment and family payments leave them with so little money that, when it comes to meeting their housing repayments, they find it close to impossible to pay for the necessities of life for them and their children. I know of one family who, because of being in this situation, allocate $10 a day for their basic daily living—one decent meal a day.Today, under this Howard Liberal government, unless one is on benefits, there is no real assistance for job seekers. To hear the honourable member for Goldstein, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), one would think that this government had solved all the problems associated with unemployment. To see those ridiculous Employment National ads on TV makes me so angry when I know just how ineffective the new employment structure really is.I admit that there were defects in the Working Nation program but, in my state of Tasmania and particularly in my electorate of Franklin, the many employment agencies did a fantastic job finding work for the short- and long-term unemployed. They were involved in constructive and innovative training programs to better the skills of those seeking to enter the work force and were able to liaise with other instrumentalities, especially local and state government agencies. This meant that effective programs were put in place to provide real employment opportunities.What we have now in my electorate is a slipshod and uncertain system. With the removal of many of these original agencies, the removal of the CES and the introduction of these new agencies, finding out where to go, when to go and who to see is a real lottery for the unemployed. Under the new system, the five Commonwealth employment services in southern Tasmania were replaced by a combination of 15 private, community and government organisations at 24 sites. `You beauty!' you hear Dr Kemp say—`We're obviously doing a fantastic job servicing our clients.' In reality, the unemployed have been sold a pup and a mangy one at that.Although the number of organisations and sites has increased, the services they provide have decreased. Trying to find Employment National offices, let alone figure out the days and hours that they are open, is a real farce. I have an Employment National office opposite my office in Cove Hill Fair Shopping Centre. Its hours of opening are 9 to 5, Thursday and Friday. One wonders why that is these days. Anyone who has anything to do with the unemployed will know that Thursday is payment day and that families are busy seeing to their family commitments on this day. Why open on Thursday?I would like to read from an article that appeared in the Star, a local newspaper in Tasmania, in the week of 21-27 May, headed `No pay, no work'. It is the story of Debbie Bone, of Gagebrook, who is reported to have been asked to pay $100 to a private employment firm because she was not eligible for a job finders fee from the government. The article states:The danger of private agencies charging job seekers for finding them work has been highlighted by former job seeker Debbie Bone's experience.Debbie received a compensation payout last September, and registered with the CES as a job seeker in January.She then applied to a private employment firm for an advertised position, but was told she was not eligible for job brokerage."Until then I hadn't even realised there was such a thing as job brokerage eligibility," she said."The woman who interviewed me said: `If we get you this job, because you are not job brokerage eligible, would you be willing to pay a fee?'"I asked her how much and she said: `Oh probably a small fee of $100.'"I said I was desperate for a job and if I could find a full time job I'd pay anything."However, Debbie says she is sure she initially missed out on the position advertised because she was not job brokerage eligible."I felt I was discriminated against for that reason," she said.Debbie has subsequently been appointed to the position she applied for, after the person initially approved proved unsatisfactory. The agent has not contacted her for payment."They can't ask me for the money," she said."I've been told it's illegal so I won't give it to them. And I only got the job on the rebound so to speak, so I think they'd have a hide to ask for it."`Search for the hero inside yourself'—so the ad says. If you find a job, you are a hero, not Employment National. What this government has done in successive budgets is to shift the problem from unemployment to the unemployed.This budget also contains little for families. In my electorate there are 10,634 children in preschool and primary school. There are 6,900 not yet of school age. The need for child care, health and properly resourced education facilities is critical. With the focus on user pays in the previous two budgets and the continued emphasis in this, it is going to be hard for the families on low incomes to access all the facilities they require. Women who want a job and whose partners work will be ineligible for job seeking assistance. How will they find a job? Without the extra pay, how will they survive? Cuts to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme means extra expense on prescription medicines for families. There has been no compensation in this budget for the money taken away.When it comes to aged care, I welcome the benchmark rate of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings for the age pension. I raise the question, however, of why the unemployed do not also receive an increase. Are they second-class citizens? The increase in funds for `Staying at Home—Care and Support for Older Australians' is welcome. Carers, as we all would know, require respite from continuous service, and having facilities at home saves on the cost of institutional care—when older people cannot stay at home they now have to pay hand over fist to gain entry into nursing homes under the regressive nursing home fee structure imposed by this government.The changes to child-care funding under this government, contrary to what it might have you believe, see child care in crisis. The National Association of Community Based Children's Services, in responding to the 1998 budget, stated that the government:. . . having made savings of almost 15% on last year's child care estimates, totally ignores the crisis in child care.Recent research submitted to the Senate inquiry into child care funding has shown that many families can no longer afford formal child care; access to quality child care is limited, particularly for those on low incomes; the community owned sector has lost over 40 child care centres nationally; fees have increased by up to $18 per week per child in the last financial year; the trend to informal care has placed increased stress on families; and older Australians, particularly grandparents, are being asked to provide increased hours of child care. In my electorate, I am sorry to have to report, the Channel Child Care Centre closed on 15 May, due to decreasing utilisation caused by increasing fees and the Tasmanian economy, along with a lack of necessary funds required to maintain and update the building to national standards by the year 2000.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—I was saying that a child-care centre in my electorate has closed. Fortunately, most of the children have been placed in other local centres. The Blackmans Bay Child Care Centre thankfully is now almost completely utilised and new customers will find difficulty in getting places in that wonderful establishment. Also, school-age program operational funding is to be removed on 1 June, resulting in increased fees and possible closure of some centres.In the area of health, there have been massive cuts to health budgets over recent years. The new agreement between the Commonwealth and states on health funding has meant a real crisis in health care in Tasmania. Waiting lists are long and surgery lists are constantly amended. Patients can be prepped for an operation but be put on hold if it is too close to 5 o'clock. Overtime is just not allowed. Staffing levels have been reduced to critical levels. This Howard Liberal budget has put no new money into the Tasmanian health system and leaves Tasmanians facing real uncertainty and those who are working tirelessly in our public hospital systems with little hope of ever regaining what was once a superb health system.On a positive note, this budget has adopted a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs—of which I have the privilege to be deputy chair—so that self-funded retirees will be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. I am really pleased that the self-funded retirees will have some encouragement and incentive to save for their retirement.Another positive initiative in this budget is the issuing of gold cards to all World War II veterans who faced danger from hostile forces during the war. This is not before time. I would also like to see veterans of the Vietnam War being considered for eligibility. The conflict they faced has produced many illnesses and disabilities amongst their number. This whole issue of the gold card also raises the issue of the members of the Allied forces who served alongside our veterans in World War II and are now resident in this country. Many of these people have been here since the end of the War. They see colleagues with whom they fought gaining benefits not available to them. This is something the government should address in a spirit of bipartisanship.All in all, this budget—hopefully the last Howard budget we will ever see in this place—has failed the families in the Franklin electorate in particular and families in Tasmania in general. To give the Liberals another chance, given that they propose to introduce the regressive GST on top of the hurt they have done to Tasmanian families, businesses, hospitals and education institutions, would be a fatal move.12:33:004209Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 on behalf of the people of my electorate. I speak for regional constituents who operate farms and businesses in districts from Kilmore to Seymour, through Alexandra to Mansfield, who are now benefiting from the results of a genuine commitment to regional Australia rather than the empty promises of the past. I speak for Yarra Valley constituents from Yarra Glen to Warburton who now know their voices are heard in Canberra even though they live outside the central business districts. And I speak on behalf of the families and small business people of outer suburban Craigieburn, Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge and Wattle Glen who now receive a fairer approach to health, education and child care and who have real protection under the law for their family businesses. In short, I am speaking on behalf of Australians now reaping genuine rewards from a government that is getting on with the job of government.In less time than was ever projected when we came to office, the government has effectively completed the first stage of the challenge that was presented to us in March 1996. This budget, in producing the first surplus in nearly 10 years, marks the reversal of the burdensome, debt-ridden legacy of Labor—a legacy that all Australians had to have, according to the previous government. The reality of that legacy may be easily forgotten by the opposition—many of whose members were guilty of the mismanagement that produced that legacy and were guilty of imposing that burden and the hardships that accompanied it—but I can assure you that my constituents have not forgotten.Take for example the typical family living in Diamond Creek, within my electorate. Five years ago, as they ran their small business in the conditions that prevailed then, they were being buffeted from pillar to post by astronomical business interest rates. They were fearful of employing people, owing to the lack of protection of redress under the unfair dismissal legislation as it then existed. They saw sales lagging, owing to recession-battered consumer confidence. On top of that, they were trying to pay off the family home with l-a-w law tax cuts that were promised but never delivered.Survival mode is how many of my constituents described it: barely surviving during the last decaying days of the previous Labor government, and watching the then finance minister and now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) fiddle while people's livelihoods figuratively burned. That is exactly how my constituents have described that period to me. They are the types of people who now have, because of the policies that we in this government have put in place to reduce debt and lessen the burdens on small business and families, an environment where they can start to get ahead.The obvious signs of this environment include the following facts. Unemployment has fallen from the highest levels under Labor to less than eight per cent—still far too high, but falling. Inflation is the lowest it has been since the 1960s. Home buyers are experiencing the lowest mortgage rates in the past 30 years, and businesses can access loans at interest rates of six per cent and seven per cent—instead of at rates of 22 per cent, as they had to under the previous government.Perhaps the clearest signal that that means something very tangible to people in my electorate is that, since our coming into office in March 1996, around 280,000 new Australian jobs have been created. Jobs are at the very cornerstone of most people's lives and form the basis of their social experience and quality of life. Employment growth under this government is a real social benefit and not simply a statistic—and they are real jobs. These social and economic conditions are signs that, as a government and as a nation, we are living within our means—and that is what `Back in the black, back on track' really means to people.On one hand, this budget signals the completion of the first stage of the job to repair the damaging effects of the previous government; on the other hand, it clearly shows the solid foundations that have been laid and that we can continue to build upon. This budget continues to restore infrastructure services and to promote confidence in regional Australia, and the positive effects across rural areas of my electorate are testimony to this.The impact of $3.5 billion in program funds to regional Australia via the coalition's whole of government approach is, and will be, clearly felt throughout my electorate. For example, the $450 million Goulburn Valley highway upgrade will initially create 300 new jobs and eventually hundreds more. Fifty-three million dollars of that will be spent on the first stage between Seymour and Nagambie making it much safer to travel and assisting local producers in getting their produce to market in prime condition.The avNET communication project for the north-east of the electorate is improving community links and services for residents, providing security of resources for the timber industry by establishing the central highlands regional forest agreement and securing local jobs, and according to industry estimates, creating hundreds of jobs over the next few years. People living throughout all these regions of my electorate will benefit from these initiatives.Local farmers in my electorate welcome the $80 million land care rebate. Up to seven out of 10 local farmers will be more able to preserve land and water quality on their farms. They appreciate that funds set aside for rare and severe weather events have been boosted by nearly $40 million and they acknowledge that the $525 million Agriculture—Advancing Australia program will assist farming families deal with rural adjustment, drought preparedness and rural community welfare and development.Regional communities such as Mansfield, Seymour, Nagambie, Yea and Kilmore already know the benefits of the Medicare Easyclaim services that we have placed in their communities. Towns such as Healesville, Yarra Junction, Wallan and Whittlesea welcome the extension of this service into their areas. This is a practical policy that allows people to access their Medicare services close to home, reducing unnecessary travel—a service they never had during the 13 years of the previous government. Of course, now they will receive prompt payment instead of having to wait for almost a month.All rural and regional communities in my electorate, from the wineries of the Yarra Valley to Lake Eildon, the Goulburn River, Mount Buller and Plenty Valley see the commonsense and benefits in allocating $8 million specifically to promote regional tourism, allowing them to take full advantage of the natural assets of our electorate.The announcement of 30 new rural multipurpose health centres to be established is yet another demonstration of how this government is getting on with the job of restoring services that Labor ignored. These services will provide local communities with a mix of services taken for granted in metropolitan areas, including, nursing, hostel care, radiology, palliative care, women's health, integrated children's services, immunisation and parenting information. These are just some of the many practical examples of how a whole of government approach is working for the health care of regional communities. It is not just that more than $30 billion is committed to public hospital services over the next five years, but how that money is directed.I know hundreds of World War II veterans in my electorate who will qualify for gold cards as of 1 January 1999 which will allow them free health care as private patients in public hospitals and access to the full range of services they may require as they become older. Nationwide this will cost $500 million, but it is money being well spent and certainly the veterans in my electorate support this initiative and the spirit in which it has been delivered.Self-funded retirees have welcomed the equity, an acknowledgment by this government of their thrift and hard work, with the broadened income eligibility for seniors health cards. These will provide them with very real savings when purchasing pharmaceuticals and, also, they welcome the tax rebate for pensioners being equally extended to retirees. Such budget decisions are restoring not only economic equity but also social fairness.Education priorities supported by parents from Healesville to Hurstbridge have been addressed by $176 million for literacy programs in our schools. As parents, we want our children to have the best possible start in life. The key to this is to be literate and numerate. I therefore join with parents in my electorate in supporting this government's aim to ensure that all children develop sound reading, writing, spelling and numeracy skills by the end of primary school. This budget provides strategies for the unemployed and young people that the previous government was unwilling, or unable, to develop. Such groups of people require community support and opportunities, and this budget has certainly delivered to them. There is every good reason to direct our efforts to our young people in this budget because, just as these young people renew our country with each generation, so too this budget has renewed fairness in government in this country.Despite the negative and obstructionist tactics of the opposition and the enormous deficit we faced when elected just over two years ago, this government has achieved great renewal for Australia and this budget reflects that fact. Not only did we overcome a more than $10 billion deficit and return to surplus in our first term as we promised; not only have we provided a strong economy that can withstand the financial instability of Asia; not only have we initiated spending that focuses on families, older Australians, health care, regional Australia, small business and employment growth—but we have done all of this fully meeting the charter of budget honesty and being the only government in living memory that, in three successive budgets, has not raised income or company tax. If government management and performance of this quality does not reflect renewal in the governing of this nation, then nothing does.We were given the job of repairing the damage done by Labor and we have delivered. We took on the job of restoring hope and we have offered a clear choice between what we have achieved and going back to the bad old days. We have now taken on the job of renewing Australia for all of us and, just as we have from March 1996, we are getting on with the job. I commend this budget to the House.12:46:004212Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The Clerk of the House, Mr Ian Harris, is a coalfields boy. It is an area in which I have a great interest and it is good to see him in the chamber today, taking note of what backbenchers are saying about how the budget has impacted upon their electorates.It always amuses me just to hear members of the government crying about budget surpluses and non-increasing taxes, when we recall that the Hawke government was the first government in the history of federation to introduce a budget surplus, a feat not achieved by any previous conservative government. They have held government in this country for the lion's share of almost 100 years of federation.It also amuses me when I hear them talking about not increasing taxes. What were the tax rates in Australia when the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was Treasurer of this country? I think the top marginal tax rate was into the 60c range and it was the Hawke and Keating governments that brought those tax rates down to, while still not an acceptable level I concede, a much lower level and the lowest level in the history of federation.There is not much that can be said of this budget, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was a non-event. I do congratulate the government on its projected $2.7 billion surplus. That was expected and the financial markets would not have accepted much less. A Labor government would have, similarly, at this point in the economic cycle been striving to achieve a similar result. There are two ways you can go about producing that surplus. You can do it on the back of growth by priming the economy, getting people working again and lifting government revenues or you can do it at the expense of those who can least afford to wear the brunt of that alternative method, and that is by heavy spending cuts. Those people who have borne the brunt are those who can least afford to do so. You have got to ask yourself, with respect to the budget, `Yes, that's fine, but at what cost?' At what cost to health services? At what cost to educational standards? At what cost to the aged in our community? At what cost to working families? Growth is the way to produce a sound budget. You do not do it by whacking those who can least afford to be whacked.Governments have very few tools available to them in terms of macro-economic management these days. Historically we have had a few of them. We have had monetary policy but these days the Reserve Bank handles that area of policy pretty well independently of the government. Governments do not have the same sort of control or ability these days to impact on or manage the economy with respect to monetary policy. We did have wages policy but, with the advent of the Workplace Relations Act, the government has now all but removed itself from any role in terms of wages policy. Really, today governments have but one economic tool available to them and that is fiscal policy. Even there the government is restricted because with the internationalisation of the economy, world markets expect us to do certain things. If we do not bring in budget surpluses or balanced budgets or any sort of budget that is acceptable to the international money markets we find ourselves in all sorts of trouble. So governments are very restricted.But there is more to fiscal policy than just the macro economy. Fiscal policy gives governments an opportunity to redistribute wealth, to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is a very important role for government. Indeed, that is probably what government is all about. I think you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. The statistician did a bit of work on this a couple of years ago. He did a study on what areas of government spending and revenue raising did the most to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is an important issue. He found that in this country the difference in private income between the poorest families and the richest families—I am talking private income alone without factoring in any assistance from government—was $13 per week for the poorest families and more than $1,500 a week for the most wealthy families. That is a substantial gap, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will agree. He found that the difference in final income—that is, when you factored in assistance given by governments, assistance such as family allowance and the like—remained at $233 for the poorest families and something like $1,200 for the most wealthy families in this country.You have to ask yourself: what part of the budget contributes most to the narrowing of that gap? Quite obviously, the raising of taxes and redistributing those taxes into cash benefits such as family allowance and pensions and other things plays a significant role. Indeed, the statistician found it narrowed the gap by about 25 per cent. But there is another very important factor, and that is the effect that provision of non-cash benefits has on the narrowing of that gap. The statistician found that that contributes to the narrowing of the gap by about 20 per cent. The provision of non-cash benefits plays a very important role in terms of the redistribution of wealth and the narrowing of the gap in this country between the haves and the have-nots. What are these non-cash benefits? They are the provision of infrastructure and services—health services, schools, roads, employment services and child-care services. However, they are the areas that this government has hit hardest not only in this budget but in all three budgets.Where do those non-cash benefits have the greatest role to play? They have the greatest role to play in rural and regional Australia where we are sparsely populated and where services are so vital to people in those communities. The government has just thrown away that opportunity. It has thrown away one of its best opportunities to redistribute wealth in this country to ensure that all Australians can enjoy a decent standard of living.But this budget's greatest failure is in the area of unemployment. This is the budget that runs up the white flag on unemployment. Remember all of the pre-election promises about jobs growth? You remember the pre-election period, Mr Deputy Speaker. The now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) were roaming the country crying about the state of unemployment in this country. They said it was in crisis, it was disgraceful, and that they were going to do something about it. Well, here we are debating their third budget, almost three years into their period in government, and not much has changed. Indeed, youth unemployment, the matter about which they were doing the most screaming, has gone up. What sorts of headlines do we get in my local newspaper? Just today the Newcastle Herald says, `Hunter jobs slashed again.' The Hunter region is in crisis.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It is Bob Baldwin's fault.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I pick up on the interjection of my colleague. What is the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) doing about unemployment in the Hunter? Not much, I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I was talking in the House on Monday about the role the government is playing in facilitating the loss of jobs in the Hunter. On that occasion, I was using the example of the exercise by Steggles of importing Korean workers to replace Australian workers. That is an exercise that is facilitated by the Howard government. Those are the sorts of headlines that we are seeing in the Hunter. There is no jobs growth whatsoever, despite those very big promises prior to the election.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—What's your mate Bob Carr done about it? Nothing.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—When BHP announced the closure of its Newcastle steelworks, there was a great hullabaloo. Politicians from both sides were falling over one another to get in first and see who could talk loudest about assistance for the people of the region as a result of that decision. The Upper Hunter Business Enterprise Centre has done a study that shows that, in comparative terms, the downturn in the coalmining and power industries is likely to have a greater impact on the Upper Hunter and areas such as the Cessnock LGA than the BHP closure had on Newcastle. But where is the recognition from government? Where is the assistance package for the Cessnock local government area, the Singleton local government area and the Muswellbrook local government area? Where is the recognition that depressed coal prices is a matter for all Australians?Where is the recognition that this dramatic structural adjustment in the Hunter needs to be dealt with by government? It is only the federal government that has the resources available to it to take that issue on. I heard the member for Paterson talking about the Carr government but it is only the federal government that has the resources. I wonder whether the member for Paterson supports federal government intervention for the Hunter. I know his Prime Minister does not because I wrote to the Prime Minister on 16 December last year bringing to his attention the Upper Hunter BEC study and the plight of people in my electorate. I pleaded with him to put in place an adjustment package that would, firstly, assist with economic growth and deal with economic adjustment in the area and, secondly, lend special assistance to retrenched coalminers so that they could be retrained and be given income support throughout that training period.What was the Prime Minister's response to this very important issue in the Hunter? Nothing. I did not even get a letter, not a response at all. And the Prime Minister is not alone in that: I can give you a list of ministers of this government who are failing to respond to letters from members of parliament. This is an extraordinary development. I do not have any delusions about power. I have never overestimated my influence in this place as an opposition backbencher but I thought one thing was sacred: I thought when a member of parliament wrote to a minister he was at least entitled to a response. I thought that, if a member wrote to the Prime Minister highlighting the plight of his or her region, and seeking some assistance, that they would at the very least get a letter of sympathy. But, no; they will not even get a response. Where does that leave the people of my electorate? It leaves them in a pretty parlous state. It certainly means that a few more will be unemployed.Let me turn now to employment services. Where do people go now that there is no CES? The member for Paterson smiles: why wouldn't he smile? He has not done too badly under the new Job Network, not too badly at all. Eight service providers with six sites in Maitland. We know why this is the case.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—He's a oncer!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—As my colleague indicates, it is because he will probably only be here once and the government is going to do all it can to protect him. How many sites in Cessnock? How many service providers in Cessnock? There were to be two as two were contracted. Well, we have Employment National but the other has not surfaced. Last Friday, along with some other residents, I roamed the CBD looking for the second service provider but we could not find it. So not only is the government forcing more people out of work in my area but also when they go to look for jobs assistance it is nowhere to be found.All the member for Paterson can do is smile. I can appreciate his being happy that his electorate has been pork-barrelled but we should look at these matters on a regional basis. Not only should he have some sympathy for those who live in his electorate and are deserving of employment services, but he should have a look at those in my electorate and the needs of my residents. The unemployment rate in the Cessnock local government area is much higher than that in Maitland. Where is the logic in all of this? The minister says that the allocation of these contracts has gone through a due diligence process and it has all been done properly by an independent body. How can anyone possibly explain how Maitland, with a lower unemployment rate, gets six sites when Cessnock gets two? There is no explanation for that, none whatsoever.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—There is: a quality member.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—A quality member! This is the member that fails to stick up for coalminers under attack by Rio Tinto. When they ring him they are simply told that it is not in his electorate. What he does not understand is that, although the coalmine is not in his electorate, the people who work there live in his electorate. I will conclude there.This is an appalling budget. It does nothing. It is only a precursor to the much bigger announcement of a GST in this country, something which once again is going to impact hardest on those who can least afford to bear it. And many of those live in my electorate.Debate (on motion by Mrs Draper) adjourned.Adjournment4215Motion (by Mr Nugent) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.421513:03:004215O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I draw the attention of the Main Committee once again to the poor state of the Princes Highway between Geelong and Melbourne, the increasing commercial and recreational use of that particular stretch of highway, the increasing risks of accidents to people who travel regularly on that route and the need for the federal and state governments to upgrade its status to a road of national importance and to commence committing funds for a third lane. It is disappointing to note the decreasing road expenditures over the life of the Howard government on roads and the reduced capacity of the federal government to fund stretches of highway which are not only important to the nation in a national economic sense but very important in a safety sense to the many people from Geelong who each day travel along this stretch of road to Melbourne to work.For example, last year's budget indicated that the national highway expenditure would rise from $680.1 million in 1997-98 to $687 million in 1998-99. In the budget just brought down by the Treasurer, we see that expenditure on the national highway will actually fall to $675.5 million. I draw the Main Committee's attention to the fact that, in Labor's last year of office, national highway expenditure was in the region of $834 million.I mention national highway road funding in the context of this adjournment debate because the commercial traffic On the Princes Highway is estimated to be in the broad band of 14,800 to 48,800 commercial vehicles per day. That is more than most national highway routes carry in all vehicle categories, yet it is not even rated as a highway of national significance. To give members an idea of the volume of traffic on the Princes Highway between Geelong and Melbourne: it is estimated that the freeway carries 40,000 vehicles per day near the Geelong end of that stretch of highway, increasing as you move to the Westgate Bridge to 132,000 movements per day. These are quite staggering figures when you consider they are increasing by the day, the week and the month. Given the poor state of the highway surface, increasing volumes of traffic of this order have quite profound safety implications for road users.In 1992, there were two fatal accidents and two deaths on the Princes Highway West, as we call it. That has increased to six fatal accidents and seven deaths in 1996. Over the same period, all casualties have increased from 136 to 164. It is an appalling safety record and, given the state of the road surface, the increasing usage overall, as well significant changes in the patterns of usage with the advent of B-doubles and triples, commuters literally take their life into their own hands when they pull out onto the highway to go to work. Put simply, the Princes Highway between Geelong and Melbourne has become a killer road.I note with some disappointment the federal government's funding commitment in the budget to roads in the Ballarat and Bendigo regions. Leaving aside the fact that these are marginal Liberal electorates in Victoria, I certainly do not begrudge those communities legitimate funding for roads. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why the federal and Victorian governments have not moved to commit funding to the Princes Highway.It is a road or a highway of national economic significance. In my electorate, we have proposals on the drawing board to vastly expand Avalon airport as an air freight centre for the export of perishable products to Asia. We also have the east coast armaments complex construction—the modified version—which the government has scaled down, but we hope it will proceed. With these two developments alone, we are going to see a massive increase in heavy vehicular traffic on this particular stretch of highway over the next five years.In addition to that, there is the increasing popularity of the Great Ocean Road, with the increasing recreational traffic occurring, so that particular stretch of highway is going to become a nightmare of some significance. I urge the federal government to declare this a road of national importance and to move quickly to commit funding to it in the national economic interest and for the safety of commuters.421613:06:004216Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Like everyone, from the Governor-General and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) down, I feel deeply and personally sorry for the pain and suffering of my Aboriginal fellow Australians. It is true that this generation is not responsible for the paternalism and the cruelties of the past but, if my grandfather had been thrown off his property by my neighbour's great-grandfather, who had lived off the fat of the land ever since, I suspect that I would be unreconciled, even if my neighbour was otherwise my best mate. It seems to me that we white Australians, who can readily feel, for instance, the antipathy of the Orange and the Green, sometimes suffer a serious failure of imagination when it comes to appreciating the pain in the hearts of our black brothers and sisters.As the Prime Minister said yesterday, reconciliation is one of the great challenges of our time and one of the most important pieces of unfinished national business. Like slavery in the United States, dispossession of the Aborigines is a stain on our soul. But, together with the Prime Minister, I have always thought that repentance was better judged by deeds than words. Cultural annihilation was never the intention of official Australia. It is worth remembering Governor Phillip's instruction to live in amity with the native inhabitants. It is true that some of our forebears did poison the waterholes and massacre women and children, but that was never officially sanctioned and white men were hanged for the murder of black men as early as the 1830s.Australia's past is not as morally simple as some promoters of a Sorry Day suggest. As anthropologist Kenneth Maddock has said, `What we are seeing is a struggle for the high moral ground, using the politics of embarrassment. The aim is to soften up your opponents by making them feel bad about themselves or their ancestors.' It is important that we remember our mistakes, but we should not forget our virtues just because not everyone is happy with the way things have turned out. The sorrow we share for the swamping of Aboriginal culture is of course a tribute to the better angels of our Western European natures.We need to ask ourselves what benefit there is in a series of Sorry Days engendering resentment in some and guilt in others. How can we be reconciled with people who accuse us of racism? We need to ask ourselves whether sackcloth and ashes is the appropriate national garb as we enter a new century. The first Christian sermon preached in New South Wales took as its text, `What can I render unto the Lord for all his blessings towards me?', and it seems to me that, if they—who had so little—felt this way, it is surely niggardly of all of us not to feel more gratitude for the great gift of being Australian.421713:11:004217Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—A number of members, including the member for Aston (Mr Nugent) and I, had the opportunity yesterday to meet with a Pakistani parliamentary delegation that is visiting Australia. I had the opportunity on several occasions, and the member for Aston had the opportunity on at least one occasion. Quite naturally, the principal area of discussion in that meeting concerned the outrageous actions of the Indian government in conducting tests with five nuclear devices earlier this month. One of those devices was a thermonuclear device. They have also tested low yield devices, which are devices that are particularly dangerous because of their tactical capacities for use in conflict. The question of India's flouting of international norms by carrying out those tests is an important matter for all in this parliament. Also, India has foreshadowed its intention to proceed to develop a missile delivery system—which further destabilises security arrangements not only on the subcontinent but also, I believe, globally.India in the past has claimed some moral authority in world affairs, and I think with some justification. Its independence struggle, with its emphasis on non-violence, and the lead that India provided in the non-aligned movement in the Cold War period are certainly both areas where it ought to receive recognition for its moral claim. But it really has gone a great way down the track to forgoing those claims, because of its outrageous actions in recent days.Australia has played a leading role in the past in strides towards non-proliferation, and Australia's role in the establishment of the comprehensive test ban treaty really gives us considerable clout in terms of putting our view on these issues. One has to ask why India has sought to destabilise global non-proliferation efforts by its actions. Certainly, India's security situation is complex but it is scarcely desperate. It clearly has justifiable Great Power aspirations, but one would have thought that it would perhaps be better served as a nation by following aspects of the example of Japan, concentrating on unleashing the economic potential of the very great country that it is, and achieving consequent social benefits for its people and its neighbours, rather than by pursuing the sorts of policies it is pursuing.Disastrously, the temptation for Pakistan now to reciprocate in kind is very strong. We and all Australians urge that country to assume some of the moral mantle that India has forgone by its actions. It is vital that sanctions on India be demonstrated to be real and effective. It is noteworthy that, whilst the World Bank indicated just the other day that it was withholding several loans, certainly the perception of the Pakistanis is that those sanctions are not particularly strong or adequate. The failure—in the Pakistani view—of the Russians, the French, and possibly the British to take economic retaliatory measures against India is, in particular, very strongly in their minds in terms of influencing their judgments.It is also very necessary to take strong action against India in the current climate, to send a clear unequivocal measure to a range of other potential nuclear power states, including some not terribly distant, such as Iran, to indicate the consequences of the actions the world community would take if they breach international norms. It is also important to renew efforts and particularly for Australia to use its influence to renew efforts to restart the global arms control discussions, to start up the START process again, if you will excuse the pun in that, and to take steps towards negotiating an effective fissile materials cut-off regime.We have, as I said before, got real authority there because of the performance particularly of the former government and the establishment of the Canberra Commission. There really needs to be a renewed commitment to ensuring strong economic incentives to countries like Pakistan to focus on economic development. Minister Downer's announcement the other day of a preparedness to double Australia's aid to just $6 million indicates, I think, a fairly miserly approach and one that needs to be reviewed in terms of providing real incentives for countries like Pakistan not to go down the nuclear route. There needs to be renewed international concern, I believe, about Pakistan's security position, particularly in attempting to solve the problem of Kashmir. (Time expired)421813:16:004218Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Last Monday in the main chamber I spoke to an aspect of the budget, the allocation of $215 million over five years to the national illicit drugs strategy. I will take this time during the adjournment debate to conclude those comments. The `tough on drugs' program that this government has introduced will go a long way to resolving the problems of drugs in our society. Clearly, we would all agree that we need to start to address the cause and just not put bandaids on the effect. We can start to address that cause by educating our young people about the problems before they are of an age when they are tempted into the drug scene. We, and I mean all of us, must be more proactive in our approach to this problem of society. I will be seeking bipartisan support from my federal and state government colleagues, from members of the community, from social workers, from the police and, indeed, from the media, from all of those who can and will help, and together, perhaps, we will launch a `Hunter—tough on drugs' program.I also support and commend the New South Wales police in Operation Noah that is under way this week. You may ask why I am concerned about the drug problem that faces our society. My concern is not just as a father of three young children yet to face the pressures of society and the temptations of drugs, but because as a young person growing up in the streets of Bankstown I experienced the very painful side effect of drug abuse when I lost two very close friends due to heroin overdose over 20 years ago.One of those friends, Kevin Fox, was a great bloke, like the big brother I never had. On the exterior he was rough and tough, a bikie and a tattooist. But what gave him away was his heart—a heart larger than Phar Lap's. I remember that I was away on a sales trip in Adelaide when I received a call to say that Kevin had died. He had died from an injection of heroin, a bad quality trip. The irony is that he had been clean for about six years, but the demon drug and whatever reason, a reason that we will never know, made him take that last hit. I have got to say that we miss Kevin.Then when I was 22 there was a young lady called Ashleigh. She and I were very close. Indeed, I had taught her scuba diving and we continued scuba diving together. We became the very best of friends and, in fact, we talked about making a long-term commitment. She was an absolutely wonderful and stunningly beautiful person. It is often said that love is blind and I must say it must be. I did not know, or even suspect, that she was addicted to the demon drug of heroin. Perhaps I lived a sheltered life unaware of this problem. Perhaps I did not want to see the problem. Ashleigh was not a heavy user—from what I found out after she died, she had only used it irregularly—but she still had that dependency upon the drug. Again, it was a bad trip that was to be a final one to heaven. Unfortunately for me, it would appear that the only long-term commitment that she was able to make was to using heroin, using it right to the end of her precious life.All of the money in the world would not bring back Kevin, or Ashleigh, or the thousands like them, but perhaps, and just perhaps, the money that we are investing can save someone like Ms H.As I travel around my electorate I see a lot of young people hanging out. Let us not make the mistake of assuming that all these young people are vandals, gangs of violent, homeless youth, drug pushers or drug users. Some of them are simply just meeting their friends and doing no harm to anyone, not even themselves.In relation to getting tough on drugs, though, we do need to talk the talk, walk the walk, and most importantly fight the fight so that we can rid the country of the problems that come with drugs. You never know whose son or daughter may be the next person attracted, through a variety of reasons, to this path that only ever leads to an eternal hell like no other. It may be your child, it may be mine, but regardless of whose we need to fight the fight.Let us hope that we can turn this ship around on the bad trip and get on to a course of salvation in this drug problem that is destroying the very people of this great nation. I sincerely hope so.421913:20:004219Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Beware the cyber censors. I notice in today's Financial Review , in an article by Lenore Taylor, that the B'nai B'rith anti-defamation commission is again in full political censorship mode in relation to both the federal coalition and Queensland preference allocation procedures.On an only slightly more subtle but far more insidious censorship note, I would urge all members of this House and Internet users everywhere to take serious note of the B'nai B'rith's anti-defamation commission's submission to the Internet Industry Association code of practice. The Adelaide Institute web site is but one of those on the ADC's submissions hit list. The following is quoted from the Adelaide Institute's critique of the ADC submission:The Adelaide Institute is concerned about attempts being made by the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission to enforce censorship, not only of the Internet, but also even of email messages deemed "offensive" by extending the terms of the IIA Draft Code of Ethics to "counter racism on the Internet".The terms of the submission made by the ADC constitute a threat to freedom of expression on the Internet. The search for truth can involve presenting viewpoints that are "controversial" and may be rejected by some, but the notion of freedom itself includes items that some people do not want to hear.The recommendation that the Internet Service Provider be liable to excise any kind of material deemed to be "offensive" involves making the Internet Service Provider a kind of unpaid agent for the State, ensuring that material is suppressed even before it is presented.The ADC "Racism on the Internet" submission also recommends that if the recipient of the email, who deems it "offensive", and who wants to refer it to the HREOC, the ISP must provide relevant name, address and contact details to facilitate the complaint.Part of the difficulty here is the way that the HREOC is itself a "Star Chamber", undemocratically denying realistic chances of equal treatment under the law and a proper right of defence, with an impartial jury. It acts as an agent for political correctness.As for the recommendation that ISP must supply all personal details of email senders for possible prosecution, this would involve a fundamental breach of trust if the supplier of information wished, for whatever reason, to keep the material confidential.It is, for example, commonplace for whistleblowers who want to expose corruption to present material to the Internet or elsewhere but to keep their details private for fear of reprisal from the body exhibiting corruption, and there is no whistleblower protection law in Victoria. Journalists who want to reveal "politically sensitive" information often have to protect confidentiality of sources.The ISP is invited to be a "pimp" by the ADC recommendation and cannot respect any individual's right of privacy or protection. The content should be judged on its factual content, on its truth, not on tracking down who said it simply because someone doesn't like it.One problem about the term "racism" is that it is, itself, a vague and catchall phrase which can be distorted or stretched to be given elastic meaning. If, for example, one should expose high crime rates amongst the Chinese, then no matter how much overwhelming evidence may be presented to prove this, it can be dismissed as "racist hate" and all factual evidence discarded.The ADC submission recommends "all Internet Service Providers to send an email message to all subscribers informing them that the publication and possession of material, such as child pornography, bomb making and racism is prohibited."Once again, this continues to make the ISP an unpaid agent of state censorship. It is real "cute" in the way it implies that "racism" is on a par with child pornography and bomb making and, owing to the elastic nature of the term "racism"' as a "catchall" phrase, can be stretched to fit into the politically correct model.The wording of this proviso linking "child pornography, bombing and racism" is deceptive. It is as if anyone were to say "murder, rape, arson and racism", implying that murder, rape and arson, which are clearly evil, are just as evil as "racism", which is open to argument in view of the abuse of the term itself which is often used as a smear.The ADC submission argues that "the Internet Industry Association should publish all complaints lodged with it as well as subsequent action undertaken if the code has been infringed."The tone of this submission appears to make the IIA judge, jury and executioner. There is no mention of appeal, grounds for an impartial trial, or examination of the grounds for prosecution. In the event of any complaint being levelled against the ADC, would it agree to having any complaint posted on its own Website?The ADC Report suggests that "for all infringements of the Code, a system should be in place so that all ISP are informed of users denied access. This will help to ensure that someone who breaches the Code will not simply commit the same offence with another ISP."This, of course, makes the ISP a "nark", an unpaid police agent whose job is to suppress information and keep it suppressed forever. If information supplied is based on factual material but is nevertheless unacceptable to certain vested interests, then it must evidently be suppressed forever. Would the ADC agree to such a proviso against itself?(Time expired)422113:25:004221Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak in support of the government's response to National Reconciliation Week and, in particular, the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on this issue. The theme this year, as the Prime Minister outlined earlier, is communities working together. This is in keeping with the government's fundamental belief that the interests of indigenous people are best served by moving forward together to solve today's problems and to create a bright future for all Australians—indigenous and non-indigenous alike.There are some in this place and elsewhere who want to use this week as an occasion to apportion blame, to inflict guilt upon this generation for the wrongs of the past, and to encourage a victim mentality rather than a positive problem solving approach to the issues that confront us. Contrary to some opinions, the Prime Minister has personally apologised and expressed his regrets on more than one occasion in this place and in public forums. I would like to take this opportunity in this place in National Reconciliation Week to also express my sorrow and regret for the mistakes of the past.What we need to do, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is to acknowledge past wrongs and resolve to address the problems that we are still facing, which is exactly what the Howard coalition government is doing. At the end of its first four years in office, this government will have spent almost $700 million more in real terms on indigenous specific programs than the previous government spent in its last four years. The bulk of this is in the areas of housing and infrastructure, health, education, employment and training, and economic development.In the area of indigenous health alone, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, we have increased spending in real terms by 37 per cent since 1995-96. Included in this spending is a raft of new initiatives including programs to fight respiratory illnesses and immunisation against influenza. Work is also under way to respond to priority health issues such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Resources have been especially devoted to hearing and eye health. Diseases affecting health status in these areas are the causes of significant morbidity but also contribute to the relatively high level of disability within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.I am delighted to say that we are also spending $63 million to address the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. The government has also maintained a strong commitment to the Abstudy and community development and employment programs. To address the difficulties faced by our indigenous communities we have allocated funds in areas which will bring about significant long-term improvements.I congratulate the Prime Minister for his stance in this area of policy, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) for the many positive initiatives that this government has promoted and implemented. True reconciliation will probably not come about in our immediate generation, sadly.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Not under this government!0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—How can it when our indigenous people have a higher rate of incarceration per head of population and their health care and educational needs are not met, nor are they anywhere near the standard of the rest of the population? Perhaps here, as a government, we could take a leaf from the book of Fred Hollows and provide not just eye care but comprehensive health care to remote areas by mobile caravan. What could be more simple or more effective than a mobile caravan staffed by our indigenous nurses and doctors, by those who best understand their spiritual, cultural and health needs?As I said, reconciliation will not come about in this generation. Rather, it will come about when all our children have been taught that to differentiate one person from another you need only to ask their name.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4223The following answers to questions were circulated:4223(Question No. 2189)21894223Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 September 1997:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 1305 (Hansard , 27 August 1997, page 7042), what information and commitments have each of the major oil companies conveyed to him in response to his correspondence of 23 December 1996.(2) When does he expect each of the major oil companies to open their terminals for competitive access.4223Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I do not disclose the contents of correspondence.However, Caltex Australia Ltd (trading as both Caltex and Ampol) is publicly committed to open access of their seaboard terminals as soon as price deregulation is implemented.(2) BP Australia Limited have already publicly established an open access regime through its terminal gate pricing system. I cannot speak on behalf of the other oil majors although I note that all are committed to introduce a system of open access in the event of full deregulation of the industry.4223(Question No. 2268)22684223West, Andrea, MPMrs WestXK6BowmanLP10 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 24 September 1997:Further to my question without notice (Hansard , 17 June 1997, page 5362) concerning Government purchasing, has the Government introduced initiatives to maintain and increase the policy of 10% of Commonwealth purchases being made from small business; if so, what.4223Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:On 8 August 1997 Commonwealth, State and Territory Procurement and Construction Ministers agreed to endorse the adoption of the `National Action on Small to Medium Enterprises in Government Procurement' as an agreed strategy to im prove the access of SMEs to Government procurement opportunities, especially in regional Australia. The agreed national actions include measures that:. reduce the cost of doing business for SMEs and for government;. encourage greater participation by SMEs in the contract chain;. promote the benefits to SMEs of the use of electronic commerce; and. give greater consideration to the regional impact of government procurement decision making.The Department of Finance and Administration is progressing initiatives to advance the national actions. The former National Procurement Board also conducted seminars around Australia and invited SMEs to comment on aspects of Government procurement.The Government announced new streamlined and simplified Commonwealth purchasing arrangements in December 1997 to cut the cost of doing business with Federal Government departments and to provide greater opportunities for small business to participate in Government markets.The key initiatives included:. maintenance of the Government's election commitment that Commonwealth departments and agencies source at least 10% of their purchases from small and medium enterprises (SMEs);. inclusion of industry development requirements and opportunities for SMEs in tender documents for major projects valued at over $10 million;. abolition of the commission imposed on businesses supplying to government under Common Use Arrangements with effect from December 1997;. establishment of a pre-qualification scheme for businesses supplying in specific markets where the government is a major purchaser. The primary aim of the scheme is to reduce the cost for suppliers and buyers in doing business;. establishment in March 1998 of a Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Service within the Department of Finance and Administration to assist suppliers (particularly SMEs) with problems they may experience with departmental purchasing processes.4224(Question No. 2615)26154224McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:How many pilots have been directed to use long-term operating landing patterns in cross winds over 15 knots since the (a) first and (b) second stages of implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan.4224Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that pilots are not directed to use particular runways. Airservices Australia nominates runways based on a number of criteria relating to wind/weather, airport efficiency and Government noise sharing objectives. Under these criteria runways are nominated with up to 25 knots of cross winds. It is the sole responsibility of the pilot to ensure that the runway nominated is suitable for the operation of the aircraft in the prevailing conditions.4224(Question No. 2616)26164224McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:How many aircraft have been directed to use Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) landing patterns in conditions of low cloud since the (a) first and (b) second stages of implementation of the LTOP.4224Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that pilots are not directed to use particular runways. Airservices Australia nominates runways based on a number of criteria relating to wind/weather, airport efficiency and Government noise sharing objectives. It is the sole responsibility of the pilot to ensure that the runway nominated is suitable for the operation of the aircraft in the prevailing conditions.Consolidated records of cloud conditions during the nomination of a particular runway are not readily available.4224(Question No. 2617)26174224McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) How many times have pilots refused Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) based landing directions since the (a) first and (b) second stages of implementation of the LTOP.(2) What are the details of the circumstances in which the directions were refused.(3) What reasons were provided by pilots for using a non-LTOP landing pattern.4224Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Airservices Australia advises that details are not readily available of the number of times and the circumstances in which pilots have indicated that they have an operational requirement for other than the nominated arrival runway.(3) Airservices Australia advises that it does not ask pilots the reasons why they require other than the nominated runway.4224(Question No. 2618)26184224McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Has the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) identified standard terminal arrivals route related procedures which do not follow accepted world best practice: if so, (a) which procedures, (b) in what way do they fail to comply with world best practice and (c) what reasons has BASI discovered for world best practice not being achieved.4224Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) published a report in January 1997 entitled An Analysis of Incidents Involving Aircrew Failing to Comply with Air Traffic Clearances June to August 1996. The analysis included a review of the development and design of standard arrival routes (STARs) in Australia and also identified a number of then current air traffic control (ATC) procedures relating to STARs which did not follow accepted worldwide practice.(b)and (c) BASI's analysis found that generally, worldwide practice is for ATC to issue a STAR that leads an aircraft to a position from which an instrument approach can be made. However, on the basis of STARs procedures in place during the survey period June to August 1996, this practice was not always the case in Australia.For example, STARs then currently in place at Melbourne generally positioned the aircraft to join an instrument approach, whereas at Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, STARs culminated with an expectation that the aircraft would be vectored by radar to join the final approach course.Furthermore, ATC could instruct aircraft to cancel and subsequently resume flying a STAR, a procedure which is not in accordance with accepted international practice. BASI's analysis also found that compared with accepted worldwide practice, many Australian STARs included lengthy transition legs which aircraft were required to fly from an airways route to join the STAR.In its report, BASI made a number of recommendations to Airservices Australia which addressed issues associated with aligning STARs procedures to accepted worldwide practice including the need to:. minimise vectoring aircraft within the STAR environment. minimise the practice of instructing aircraft to resume a STAR after having been vectored off a STAR. ensure that STARs at all locations are designed with consistent design principles. ensure STAR designs are compatible with aircraft flight management systems (FMS) especially where STARs are not runway specific.4225(Question No. 2630)26304225Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has his Department entered negotiations with the NSW Government to site a rail link between Glenfield and the proposed second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek; if so, at what stage are the negotiations.(2) Has it been proposed to acquire land owned by Hurlstone Agricultural High School in Glenfield to facilitate the process.4225Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The suitability of the Badgerys Creek site for the development of a major airport is presently the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The Draft EIS discusses two alternative route options for providing rail access between Glenfield and Badgerys Creek. Investigations undertaken by the Commonwealth and the NSW Government some years ago have been taken into account in developing the rail route options.Responsibility for acquisition of land for the expansion of Sydney's metropolitan rail network rests with the NSW Government. There is no current action by the Commonwealth to fund the acquisition of any land for a possible rail corridor between Glenfield and the Badgerys Creek airport site. Any Commonwealth involvement in the provision of rail access to Badgerys Creek will be dependent on the outcome of the second Sydney airport EIS process.4225(Question No. 2700)27004225Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 March 1998.Is he able to say which countries have (a) allowed appeals or (b) ceased to allow appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since the answer to question No. 1927 (Hansard , 30 March 1995, page 2679).4225Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The source of the following information is Whitaker's Almanac 1998.(a) The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is primarily the final court of appeal for the United Kingdom dependent territories and those independent Commonwealth countries which have retained the avenue of appeal upon achieving independence as follows—Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Dominica, The Gambia, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mauritius, New Zealand, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu. The Committee also hears appeals from the Channel Islands and the lsle of Man.(b) Since the answer to the House of Representatives Question No. 1927, appeals to the Privy Council are no longer allowed from the following countries and territories Akrotiri, Bermuda, British Antarctica Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Dhekelia, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Jersey, Monserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.4225(Question No. 2703)27034225Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 953 (Hansard, 15 May 1997, page 3720), did the Federal Airports Corporation refer the report of the Jandakot Airport noise study to his Department in early April 1997.(2) Have the findings of the report been released for public comment; if not, why not. (3) When will the final report be released.4226Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) and (3) The final report of the Jandakot Airport Noise Study was released by the Federal Airports Corporation in January 1998.4226(Question No. 2730)27304226Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) Is it a fact that on 24 January 1998 between 6 p.m. and 6.10 p.m. an aircraft with call sign Oscar Victor Oscar Harvard made four touch and go circuits at Essendon Airport involving ten movements including the proper take-of and landing.(2) Is it also a fact that the pilot, in asking for clearance for landing at Point Cook, observed that he would upset the neighbours if he did more touch and goes at Essendon Airport.(3) Are the operations described on part (1) inappropriate for Essendon Airport; if so what action will he take to ensure that they are undertaken at Point Cook rather than Essendon.4226Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia advise that the aircraft in question operated as described except that the tenth movement was about one hour later when the aircraft returned from Point Cook.(2) Airservices Australia advises that it has no reports on this matter.(3) Circuits by single-engined aircraft are permitted at Essendon for the purpose of test flights and pilot endorsements. Airservices Australia advises that it's operational procedures do not give Air Traffic Controllers the authority to question the purpose of particular flights.4226(Question No. 2740)27404226Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:Has Sir Ronald Wilson received payments for travel allowance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission since he ceased to be Chairman of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; if so, for what purposes. 4226Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:No payments for travel allowance have been made from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to Sir Ronald Wilson since he ceased to be Chairman of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.4226(Question No. 2748)27484226McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, 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.4227Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) does not maintain records of this nature and I am not willing to allocate resources to undertake the research that would be required to comprehensively answer the above questions.However, the department has entered into a contract, at a corporate level, with Kowalski Consulting. The terms of the contract are for the supply of temporary Executive Assistants on an as needs basis. This contract commenced on 1 September 1997. Therefore, there were no persons employed under this contract during 1996-97. Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 fifty-four persons were employed.(2) The persons referred to in part (1) have been employed within the operating Groups of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy.(3) Kowalski Consulting.(4) The labour-hire firm was selected through a public tender process.(5) A copy of the request for tender proposal is at Attachment A.(6) A copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms is within Section 3 of Attachment A.(7) The selection panel for the successful tender consisted of the following Department of Primary Industries and Energy staff: Mr Bob Gillingham—Manager, Headquarters Services Centre; Mr Chris Hyman—Resource Manager, Energy Division; Ms Helen Versluis—Manager, DPIE Training Centre; Ms Sharon Coady—Representative DPIE Executive Assistants; Ms Virginia Perkins—Representative DPIE Executive Assistants.(8) The commission payable to Kowalski Consulting for each person contracted for labour is 18%.(9) (a) The total sum payable to Kowalski Consulting was $1,987.76 as at 24 March 1998.(b) The total amount already paid was $244,071.97 as at 24 March 1998.(10) (a) Nil. (b) Between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998 the total sum paid to Kowalski Consulting was $244,071.97.(11) No projections of this nature are made, but the level of usage indicated in the answer to question 1 provides a guide to the likely future employment levels.(12) All persons provided by Kowalski Consulting are for temporary placements only, not to replace permanent government employees.Attachment ADepartment of Primary Industries and EnergyREQUEST FOR TENDER PROPOSALFor the Provision ofTEMPORARY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTSRFT ID: HQSCEATCLOSING DATE: 1 August 1997Contact Officer: Helen VersluisHeadquarters Group(06) 272 5912TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION 1— OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSAL 3SECTION 2— EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS GENERAL INFORMATIONSECTION 3— TEMPORARY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS SELECTION CRITERIA 4SECTION 4— CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF TEMPORARY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS 5SECTION 5— DRAFT CONTRACT 6SECTION 6— SUBMISSION OF TENDERS 6SECTION 7— CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 8SECTION 8— COMPLETION OF TENDER 8SECTION 9— TENDER DOCUMENTS AND LICENSE TO COPY 9SECTION 10— TENDER ASSESSMENT 9SECTION 11— COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS 10SECTION 12— PRICES AND DISCOUNTS 10SECTION 13— ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER 11SECTION 14— OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 11SECTION 15— ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS 11SECTION 16— INTERPRETATION 11 Section 1Outline of Proposal1.1The Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) is seeking tenders from interested companies prepared to supply temporary employees (Executive Assistants (EA's) on a short term basis.1.2The Department is keen to formalise arrangements with a single provider or panel of providers to ensure a consistently high standard of service when hiring temporary employees.1.3The following points should be considered when formulating the tender response:a. a clear understanding of the devolved operating environment in the Departmentb. the cost effectiveness and deliver of EA servicesc. the maintenance of a minimum number of temporary employees with Departmental knowledge obtained from a specifically tailored EA's induction process provided through the Departmentd. provide operating standards throughout the life of the agreement through performance evaluatione. have a flexible approach to providing required staffing numbersf. uphold confidentiality agreements.1.4Full conditions and interpretation fo the Tender are set out below.1.5The contract shall be for a one (1) year period upon which time the tender will be re-examined.1.6The Department reserves the right not to proceed with the Tender process in the event that it is not cost effective.SECTION 2EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS GENERAL INFORMATION2.1DPIE is seeking to enter into a partnership arrangement with a supplier to provide temporary EA's with an operating knowledge of DPIE on an `as required' basis.2.2DPIE has 90—100 EA's of which approximately 20% are temporary contracted employees. The length of tenure can range from 1 day to 3 months and longer in some circumstances.2.3Prospective tenderers must be able to provide temporary EAs at each level within the ASO3-ASO5 range- the level based on the extent to which the EA's assessed relevant skills and experience meet the selection criteria.SECTION 3—TEMPORARY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS SELECTION CRITERIA 3.1High level of secretarial ability:a. 55-65 words per minute,b. dictaphone and/or shorthand experience.3.2Demonstrated ability to use both Apple Macintosh and IBM PC's including software such as:a. Excel spreadsheetb. Word 6c. Windows 95d. electronic maile. electronic diary.3.3Demonstrated high level of initiative and organisational skills, including the ability to judge priorities and demonstrated ability to work alone and initiate action without detailed guidance or supervision.3.4Well developed oral communication skills and the ability to coordinate effectively within and outside the organisation.3.5Demonstrated ability to manage a busy office, with a high degree of timeliness, accuracy and attention to detail.3.6Demonstrated ability to work in a team environment, and display a professional approach to the work place.3.7Demonstrated ability to work in a changing environment, ie be flexible, adaptable and innovative.3.8A demonstrated professional approach to the workplace• The extent to which these criteria are met should determine the salary point at which the temporary EA will be employed.SECTION 4—CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF TEMPORARY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS4.1The successful Agency will be responsible for all payments to the Temporary EA's such as:a. hourly rates, including overtime ratesb. any on costs such as:• workers compensation • superannuation• payroll tax• income tax etcc. any minimum charge rates for less than full day.4.2Oncosts to be identified by Agencies when submitting their tenders.4.3 DPIE will be responsible for the costs of DPIE specific training (eg. induction program).4.4It is preferred that temporary EA's be considered employees of the Agency and not of DPIEa. this means that on-going temporary employees will have the same opportunity to apply for vacant positions as outside candidates- they will not be considered on-going employees of DPIE- this needs to be conveyed by the Agency to the people they supply as DPIE temporary staff under this agreementb. penalty fees need to be identified by the Agencies in the event of a temp gaining permanent employment with the department4.5Accounts will be settled based on timesheets approved by the EA's supervisor• timesheets to be supplied by the successful tenderer.SECTION 5—DRAFT CONTRACT5.1The draft terms of contract are at Attachment 1.• They will apply to any successful tender for the provision of temporary employees under this Request for Tender.SECTION 6—SUBMISSION OF TENDERS6.1All Tenders must be delivered by hand to the nominated person at the address below:Helen Versluis, DPIE Training & Conference Centre, Business Services, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Core 5 Level 5 Wing 5, Edmund Barton Building, BARTON ACT 2600Helen Versluis, DPIE Training & Conference Centre, Business Services, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, GPO Box 858, CANBERRA ACT 2601No tender shall be deemed to have been accepted until acceptance is formally notified by the Department.6.2The deadline for lodgement of Tenders is 1 August 1997. Tenders must be lodged on or before the Tender deadline.6.3If Tenderers become aware of any discrepancy, error or omission in their tender and wish to lodge a correction or additional information, it must be in writing and lodged prior to the Tender deadline.6.4The deadlines set for lodgement of Tender is extended only by written notice from the Department. Any extension notice will be given the same distribution as for the original Request for Tender.6.5Tender documents must be enclosed in a sealed envelop or other sealed container endorsed with "Request for Tender identification HQSCEAT" and the deadline set for lodgement of Tenders. The Tender, any attachments and supporting documentation must be in English. 6.6The submission of supporting material must be clearly indicated in the formal Tender document. Material presented as supporting material which effectively alters the formal Tender will not be admitted for evaluation. Tenderers must ensure that the Tender specifically responds to every RFT statement of requirements. The Tender must be clear and precise and must refer, where appropriate, to page or paragraph numbers in any manuals or documentation which form part of the Tender. The Department will not accept responsibility for any misunderstanding arising from the failure by the Tenderer to comply with the requirements of the Section. Tenderers must note that those Tenders that do not reasonably satisfy the requirements of this Section or are insufficient to reasonably allow evaluation of the offer may be excluded from further consideration. Where there is no response to a requirement of the RFT, the Tenderer shall be deemed not to comply with the stated requirement for evaluation purposes.6.7Three (3) copies of Tenders and one (1) copy of supporting material must be submitted so that they will be received at the address previously stipulated by the closing date and time. The original is to be marked Copy No 1, Copy No 2 etc. respectively. In the event of any discrepancy between copies and the original, the original will prevail.6.8All documentation received as part of the Tenderer's response will be treated as commercial-in-confidence.6.9Any Tender (including a Tender already received at another point in the office of the Department) is considered late if it is handed to the nominated officer any time after the official deadline for the lodgement of Tenders.6.10A Tender received after the deadline for lodgement (as stated in the RFT) shall be opened and registered separately. It may be admitted to the Evaluation Process if, at the absolute discretion of the Department, the Tenderer was not likely to have had any opportunity to obtain an unfair advantage from the late submission of the Tender. The Department may however, at its absolute discretion, reject any Tenders received after the deadline for lodgement.6.11The lowest tender may not necessarily be accepted and no Tender shall be deemed to have been accepted unless and until a contract is signed by both the DPIE representative and the successful Tenderer. The draft contract at Attachment 1 will be the basis for the final contract.6.12In consideration of DPIE undertaking to give fair consideration to and take into account of the Tender with other Tenders received, but for no other consideration, all Tender documents submitted in response to the RFT shall become the property of the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the above, intellectual property in the information contained in the Tender documents shall remain vested in the Tenderer.SECTION 7—CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 7.1The Commonwealth is required by law to publish summary details of most of its contracts in the Commonwealth Purchasing and Disposals Gazette and to disclose to members of the public such details additional to those published about a contract as it thinks fit. In the absence of any contrary provision in a contract, such additional details may include unit prices for items covered by the contract, rates for chargeable work and other details about the items and conditions of the contract.7.2Information submitted by a Tenderer shall be treated by DPIE as `Commercial in Confidence' to the extent necessary and that information shall be protected from disclosure, subject to any lawful obligations on DPIE to disclose information or any purposes of the Evaluation Process (whereby any third parties shall be informed of the confidentiality attached to that information and required to adequately protect that information).7.3Each Tenderer acknowledges that DPIE is subject to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, which allows the public access to government documents although, subject to the Act, the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking shall generally not be disclosed.7.4The Tenderer shall indicate which information, if any, contained in its Tender or in any supporting information is provided on the basis that it is not to be disclosed without its prior consent.7.5The Department's obligation and discretionary powers as to disclosure of the above mentioned information are in addition to its powers, rights and obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.SECTION 8—COMPLETION OF TENDER8.1The Tender pricing for these Services is to be stated in Australian dollars and the Tender price is to include all costs connected with tendering for, and the performance of supplying the Department with temporary Executive Assistant services, the subject of the RFT.8.2Tenders and supporting material shall be in the English language and any other details to be included in the Tender, shall be legible and in typed format (including computer generated printing).8.3Any alterations and erasures in a Tender shall be initialled by the Tenderer.8.4Other than documents provided by the Commonwealth as part of this RFT, Tenderers shall obtain for themselves, at their own responsibility and expense, any information necessary for the preparation of their Tenders.8.5Failure by a Tenderer to provide all information sought in the RFT may at the Commonwealth's absolute discretion, render the Tender ineligible for admission to the Tender Evaluation Process.SECTION 9—TENDER DOCUMENTS AND LICENSE TO COPY9.1The property in documentation included in or associated with a Tender shall vest in the Commonwealth.9.2The Commonwealth shall have a permanent, irrevocable, royalty-free license to copy any Tender or associated material for the purposes of the evaluation process.SECTION 10—TENDER ASSESSMENT10.1Tenders will be assessed on the basis of the tender representing the best value for money. In considering the best value for money the following matters (among others and not in any priority), may be taken into account together with any additional matters referred to in Sections 1—9 above:a. performance of the tenderer in respect of projects of a similar magnitude;b. experience of key personnel;c. tender price and pricing structure; andd.compliance with Australian Government requirements referred to in the RFT.SECTION 11—COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS11.1The Department reserves the right absolutely to engage in discussions with, or seek clarification orally or in writing about any matter from any Tenderer at any stage of the evaluation process.11.2The Department reserves the right absolutely to make a short list of any Tenderers and seek further information or final offers from those Tenderers before choosing one or any of them to enter an agreement. In the event of a short list being compiled by the Department, Tenderers not on the short list shall be advised of that fact as soon as is practicable.11.3The Department (through the Groups) reserves the right absolutely to not to make a short list of any Tenderers and to enter an agreement with a Tenderer without seeking further information from other Tenderers.SECTION 12—PRICES AND DISCOUNTS12.1Tenderers shall give firm prices and shall not offer prices by reference to the prices made by other Tenderers.12.2Any potential price variations shall be clearly justified in the Tender, including a mechanism for minimising detrimental risk to the Department from such variations. 12.3Tenderers may indicate if any discount is allowed for early payment of accounts. Tenderers may offer settlement discounts for payment within periods of less than 30 days, but, in assessing Tenders, the Department reserves the right absolutely to only consider 30 days' settlement discounts from the date upon which an invoice for payment under an agreement is received by the Department.12.4For the purpose of calculating settlement discounts, payment of an account shall be deemed to have been made at the date on which the appropriate cheque is drawn by the Commonwealth.12.5The Commonwealth reserves the absolute discretion to add to, delete from, or otherwise amend, vary, withdraw or re-issue the RFT (including the Conditions of Tender) at any time whatsoever. The Department shall make reasonable endeavours to inform any prospective tenderers that have sought, or been issued with, an RFT of any variations to the RFT.SECTION 13—ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER13.1The Department may enter into an agreement relating to a Tender for the whole or part of that Tender.13.2The Department is not bound to enter into an agreement for the lowest of any Tender.13.3Each Tender shall remain in force for at least 90 days after the deadline for lodgement or until a Tenderer expressly notifies the Department's nominated person in writing that its Tender has been withdrawn, whichever is the later.13.4Where the Department accepts a Tender, the Tenderer shall execute such documentation as the Commonwealth requires to bring an appropriate agreement into being.13.5No legal relationship shall exist between the parties (in law or equity) until an agreement has been executed in the appropriate form by both (or all relevant) parties.SECTION 14—OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS14.1In consideration of the Department undertaking to give fair consideration to and take into account the Tender with the other Tenders, but for no other consideration, all Tender documents submitted in response to the RFT shall become the property of the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the above, intellectual property in the information contained in the Tender documents shall remain vested in the Tenderer.SECTION 15—ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS15.1Commonwealth policy is to maximise employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples. Tenderers must state what opportunities, if any, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are proposed if the tender is successful.SECTION 16—INTERPRETATION16.1In this RFT, unless the contrary intention appears:a. "Commonwealth" means the Commonwealth of Australia, including but not limited to, unless the contrary intention appears, the Commonwealth as represented by the Groups and/or the Department, its authorised employees, contractors or agents.b. "Department" means the Commonwealth's Department of Primary Industry and Energy, or such other government agency or department as may, from time to time, administer the Evaluation Process and any relevant agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth.c. "Evaluation Process" means the process of issuing the RFT, liaising with Tenderers, receiving and evaluating Tenders and executing any agreements related to this RFT.d. "Deadline for lodgement of Tenders" means the time and date by which a Tender is to be submitted by a Tenderer, as stated in the RFT.e. "Request for Tender (RFT)" means the invitation from the Department for a prospective tenderer to submit a Tender.f. "Tender" means the tender lodged by a Tenderer in response to the RFT and includes any supplementary material supplied by the Tenderer at the request of the Commonwealth after the deadline for lodgement of Tenders.g. "Tenderer" means a person who lodges a Tender in response to the RFT.16.2Unless the context otherwise requires, words importing the one gender shall include the others and words importing the singular number shall include the plural and the plural the singular.16.3The word "person" shall include a company and any other body, whether corporate or unincorporated, and shall include the personal representative of a deceased person and any other legal successor to a person.16.4Unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to an Act is to an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament and, if that Act has been or is amended, is a reference to that Act as amended. 16.5Where any word or phase is given a defined meaning, any other part of speech or other grammatical form in respect of that word or phrase has a corresponding meaning.4236(Question No. 2763)27634236Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) Has he, his office or his Department had discussions about the proposed fanning out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport flights over the eastern suburbs of Sydney and the introduction of mode 6A; if so, (a) with whom were the discussions held and (b) when were they held.(2) Has his attention been drawn to a press release entitled "Joe Hockey and Mode 6A" issued by the Member for Wentworth on 3 March 1998; if so, are statements relating to the matter referred to in part (1) which are contained in the press release accurate.4236Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Neither I nor my office have been involved in discussions on the fanning out of flight paths over the eastern suburbs.The possibility of fanning out of flight paths over the eastern suburbs was raised briefly, but not taken up, at the meeting of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee held on 20 January 1998. The introduction of mode 6A was discussed at the meetings of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee held on 20 January 1998, 17 February 1998 and 10 March 1998. A representative of the Department was present at these meetings.(2) I and Members of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee were aware of the proposed mode 6A on the date of the media release.4236(Question No. 2809)28094236Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:Further to the answer to question No.37 (Hansard , 20 August 1996, page 3286) what is the (a) priority status of the proposed construction of on and off ramps south of Brooks Road on the M5 freeway at Ingleburn, NSW; (b) progress of discussions between his Department and the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority regarding this matter and (c) expected commencement date for the project. 4236Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) No decision has yet been made on the priority status of funding for construction of the F5 ramps. The Government is funding a $100,000 traffic study in 1997/98 to investigate the need for additional entry and exit ramps along the F5. The study, to be completed by mid-1998, is examining the need for ramps at the intersections of Raby Road, St Andrews Road, Campbelltown Road and Brooks Road in the Ingleburn and Minto area.(b) The Department of Transport and Regional Development has discussed the possible need for additional ramps with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) in the context of the National Highway forward program in NSW. These discussions have also raised the possible need to develop joint funding arrangements with NSW, relevant councils and private sector developers.(c) A commencement date and funding arrangements will be determined when the results of the current study are available.4236(Question No. 2834)28344236McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:Has his Department contracted a company called Industrial Psychology Consultants Pty Ltd to provide employment services; if so, (a) in what location will the services be provided, (b) what is the nature of the services to be provided, (c) what are the detailed reasons supporting the choice of the company, and (d) what business premises does the company operate from.4236Kemp, 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:Yes.(a) Services will be provided from eighteen locations within three of the Department's Labour Market Regions: South West Sydney, Western Sydney and North Sydney and Central Coast.(b) Industrial Psychology Consultants Pty Ltd have been contracted to provide Job Matching (FLEX1), Job Search Training (FLEX2) and Intensive Assistance (FLEX3).(c) The tender submitted by Industrial Psychology Consultants Pty Ltd was rated as suitable against published selection criteria and following financial viability checks (including historic financial and qualitative information plus their business plan as reflected by cash flows) to ensure the organisation was able to meet contractual obligations over the contract period. Information provided by organisations is Commercial in Confidence. The complex assessment process was monitored by independent lawyers, Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers, to ensure procedural integrity. They are satisfied that the tender process has `been conducted in accordance with the probity requirements set down in the tender documentation and that there was no systematic bias or lack of objectivity which advantaged or disadvantaged any particular bidder.'It is not possible to provide particular details of any organisation's bid or reasons for selection, as these details are Commercial in Confidence.(d) Industrial Psychology Consultants Pty Ltd are providing Job Network services from the following locations: Unit A, 1 st Floor, 44-50 Auburn Road, Auburn NSW 2144; Suite 10, 432 Chapel Road, Bankstown NSW 2200; Suite 106A, 30 Campbell Street, Blacktown NSW 2148; Office 29, 1 st Floor, 95-97 John Street, Cabramatta NSW 2166; Suite 2, 60B Evaline Street, Campsie NSW 2194; Unit 11, 6-8 Old Castle High Road, Castle Hill NSW 2154; 93 Erina Street, Gosford NSW 2250; Shop 2, 107-115 Pacific High way, Hornsby NSW 2077; Suite 3, 374-378 Forest Road, Hurstville NSW 2220; Suite 4, 49 Oxford Road, Ingleburn NSW 2565; Suite 2, Level 1, 224-238 George Street, Liverpool NSW 2170; Suite 2, Level 2, 1A O'Connell Street, Parramatta 2150; 2B, 21 Lawson Street, Penrith NSW 2750; 81 Railway Street, Rockdale NSW 2216; 5 Church Street, Ryde NSW 2112; 3/178-186 Queen Street, St Marys NSW 2760; 13A Eton Street, Sutherland NSW 2232; 88 Pacific Highway, Wyong NSW 2259.4237(Question No. 2864)28644237Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:What were or are the (a) name of, (b) dates of (i) commencement and (ii) conclusion of, (c) Australian units involved in, (d) US units involved in, (e) cost to the Australian Defence Force of, and (f) nature of, each exercise which the ADF has undertaken or will undertake with US forces in (A) 1994, (B) 1995, (C) 1996, (D) 1997, (E) 1998, (F) 1999 and (G) 2000.4237McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The information required is available in various Defence Department databases but presenting the information requested by the honourable member poses the following problems:(a) the raw database printout of the exercises, without the costing information, is over 160 pages and it would take considerable time and effort to extract the information sought;(b) some of the information on exercises is classified; and(c) some of the costing information is not readily available.My Office can arrange a briefing for the honourable member should he require further details.4237(Question No. 2871)28714237Hicks, Noel, MPMr HicksAH4RiverinaNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:What sum has been spent with each vehicle manufacturer in supplying vehicles to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and other Commonwealth funded Aboriginal organisations in each year since 1993.4237Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Nil. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission does not deal with vehicle manufacturers, however it sources its vehicles through DASFLEET.Aboriginal organisations can be funded for the purchase of motor vehicles to assist in the completion of their funded activities. Where motor vehicles are purchased it is the client who decides what type of vehicle most addresses their need.It is not feasible to compile a definitive response, even to the extent that it would be possible, due to the level of resources it would require.GOVERNMENT AGENCIESAboriginal Hostels LimitedThe Aboriginal Hostels Limited has not directly paid a sum of money to any vehicle manufacturer for the supply of vehicles, in each year since 1993.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development CorporationThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation does not purchase vehicles. The small number of vehicles utilised by the ATSICDC is obtained through DASFLEET and ownership of the vehicles rests with that organisation. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders StudiesAIATSIS has a policy of owning rather than leasing vehicles. The following prices are the amount spent (as asked for) ie purchase price after trade-in.1993 Mitsubishi $12,464; 1994 ditto $7447; 1995 ditto nil Ford $11,189; 1996 ditto $10,999; 1997 ditto nil Ford $9,255.Torres Strait Regional AuthorityThe Torres Strait Regional Authority was created on July 1 1994. All TSRA administration vehicles are leased through DASFLEET. Our record system does not allow us to identify individual lease payments only a combined monthly lease payment is made for all cars. Combined lease payments for administration vehicles are as follows: 1994/95—$13,886; 1995/96—$22,482; 1996/97—$20,292; 1997/98—$23,858 (July to April).The following make of vehicles are currently leased from DASFLEET: Toyota Camry, Nissan Navara, Toyota Spacia, Ford Futura.The following are vehicles that have been previously leased from DASFLEET: Toyota Tarago, Toyota Camry, Toyota Ute, Toyota Tarago.Organisations and Councils funded through TSRA programs may purchase vehicles if they are required for the effective running of that organisation. Each Council/Organisation decides which vehicle most suits the need of their organisation. As the TSRA is not involved in the daily administration of these Councils/Organisations the TSRA is not involved in the decision as to what type of vehicles to purchase. However, as per the TSRA grant conditions before the purchase of any vehicle any Council/Organisation must obtain three quotes to ensure value for money is obtained.The majority of vehicles purchased by island councils from Commonwealth funds are in order to operate the Community Development Employment Programs.Indigenous Land CorporationThe Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) has not purchased any motor vehicles for use by ILC staff since its establishment on 1 June 1995. The ILC's current in-house motor vehicle requirements are met through the term leasing of four (4) Holden and two (2) Mitsubishi motor cars from DASFLEET in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane and one (1) Holden motor car from City Holden in Adelaide.Mogila Merino Stud Pty Ltd (ACN 078 466 761), a wholly owned subsidiary of the ILC, purchased several new and second hand motor vehicles for on-farm use at Mogila Station, NSW. The cost of purchase of these vehicles has been partially offset by a recent clearance sale of surplus vehicles, plant and machinery acquired as part of the initial "walk-in, walk-out" purchase of the property. The decision by the company to do so was a commercial one based on its continued successful trading position.VehicleNewCost1 Toyota Land Cruiser station wagonNo$39,8001 Toyota Hilux utilityYes$26,5001 Toyota Landcruiser TraybackYes$38,1703 Suzuki Ag BikesYes$8,9703 Suzuki 4 wheel motorcyclesYes$21,750Similarly, Cardabia Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (ACN 080 766 463), also a wholly owned subsidiary of the ILC, purchased the following vehicles.VehicleNewCost2 Suzuki DF200 Trojan motorcyclesYes$7,6001 Toyota Land Cruiser troop carrierNo$15,990Monies spent on the acquisition of vehicles in these two cases are effectively loans by the ILC, which will be repaid over time through income generated by businesses operating on the properties.More generally, the ILC has purchased a number of pastoral properties on a "walk-in, walk-out" basis. Several of those purchases have involved the acquisition of motor vehicles and mobile plant from the vendors of the properties as part of the sale. In some cases, reinstatement insurance values were attributed to particular items, although those values are not necessarily reflective either of the replacement cost neither of the items or of their current resale value. 4239(Question No. 2890)28904239Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) Do proposed flight paths exist in conjunction with the draft Brisbane Airport master plan released in March 1998: if so, (a) why were they not released with the draft master plan and (b) will he ensure they are released immediately.(2) What action will be taken to ensure that the effects of noise generated by increased air traffic over Brisbane and the number of residents affected are minimised.4239Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The master plan process exposes the community to the airport owner's vision for the possible future development of the airport. It does not provide approval, or imply that approval will be given, for any major projects such as new runways. Master plans have previously been released for Brisbane Airport in 1983, 1991 and 1995. None of these previous master plans have included flight paths for the proposed parallel runway. (a) The timing of the release of flight paths is primarily a matter for the airport owner. (b) Flight paths will be an important part of the environmental impact statement that will be required as part of any Major Development Plan such as a new runway, if that development were to be proposed in several years time. The Airports Act process does not allow a runway to be constructed until flight paths and all other environmental impacts are fully known to the community through an environmental impact statement process.(2) Brisbane Airport Corporation Limited (BACL) has provided information to the community which gives its commitment to minimising noise impacts on the community wherever and whenever practicable, in consultation with other stakeholders. The Corporation indicates that managing aircraft impacts to acceptable levels is a matter for the airlines, Airservices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Corporation itself, and land use planning authorities such as Brisbane City Council and State government agencies. Importantly, under the Airports Act 1996, any Major Development Plan for constructing a new runway or extending the length of a runway is required to set out the airport owner's plans for managing aircraft noise intrusion, developed in consultations with the airlines, local government bodies in the vicinity of the airport, and the local community.