1998-06-013817REPS424101998-06-01Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous42414241Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In accordance with the trials of various parts of the procedures, there are a number that are still continuing. As members would be aware, the distinguished visitors gallery is available, and there are seats available for members at all stages of the day, the purpose being to try to ensure that there are some people on the floor of the House, in addition to those who are members, but behind us and not within the prescribed area.There will also be a technician at the rear of the House to adjust sound volumes during the question period. This week Hansard is going to have one supervisor at the central table, and there will be other reporters according to where Hansard feels it is best. I am aware of some difficulties in trying to ensure that Hansard can hear in those positions, but we are still trying them for the purpose of trying to ensure that we get the best position. I should point out that there has been a very large sum of money spent on new technical equipment for Hansard, and there is a suggestion that perhaps they should be able to therefore get by without all reporters at the table.Finally, if members have any comments or views on these changes, I would be very happy to receive them because it is my intention to discuss them with the Leader of the House (Mr Reith), the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) the Chief Government Whip (Mr Andrew) and the Chief Opposition Whip (Mr Leo McLeay) later this week to test whether or not they are practical.Committees42414241424112:33:004241Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's interim report on its inquiry into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—This interim report on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment responds to the reference of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) to the committee on 5 March this year. We have also been asked by the Senate to conduct an inquiry into the MAI and to report by 25 May. Clearly it was impossible to provide a final report by then if we were to do justice to this inquiry because of the high level of public interest and the complex nature of the issues before us. We have decided, therefore, to roll both terms of reference into the one inquiry. A more detailed report will be presented to parliament once we have taken all the evidence we need.To date we have held one preliminary public hearing in Canberra, but we intend to resume our inquiry in the winter recess. The MAI has proved to be a controversial agreement in Australia and in a number of other countries, with the negotiating parties finding it impossible to reach consensus on a number of key issues: cultural protection, labour issues and the environment in particular. Last month in Paris negotiations in the OECD were put on hold for six months to see whether some agreement could be worked out and to allow for broader community consultation in OECD countries. To date we have received just over 800 submissions as well as around 400 form letters opposing the agreement.The concerns range from outright rejection of the concept of international treaties to those with specific criticisms or reservations about aspects of the MAI, particularly perceptions of adverse effects on sovereignty. Other main concerns relate to the impact of the MAI on the environment, labour standards, human rights, cultural issues and the perception that the MAI in its current form ascribes rights to multinational investors equivalent to sovereign states.We intend to consider further whether the OECD is the best forum in which an international investment treaty should be negotiated or whether some other body, such as the World Trade Organisation, would be more appropriate. There is a lot of misinformation circulating about the MAI which is creating concern in the community. We hope to dispel this by the end of the inquiry. It needs to be remembered that the MAI should be read in two parts: in terms of the draft text of the agreement itself and in terms of the preliminary exceptions individual countries have indicated they intend to take out. We also need to see the final shape of the MAI as well as look at the proposed exceptions of other countries. The changing nature of the MAI poses a particular problem.In the meantime, Australia has foreshadowed wide ranging exceptions to protect our foreign investment regime and the national interest. These are likely to expand once state and territory concerns are taken into account. Many submissions criticise the Treasury for inadequate or narrow consultation. We note that certain select groups have been in the consultation loop since 1995, yet it was only on 31 March this year that the Australian parliament and the general public were given access to the draft MAI after it was tabled and later put on the Internet by the Treasury. While the MAI will impact potentially on the states and territories, a framework for proper consultation with the states and territories is yet to be established, and more information needs to be provided, including the implications for local government. A whole of government approach at the Commonwealth level needs to be developed.The committee is critical of the general nature of the Treasury's submission, which does not allow us to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the draft MAI in any meaningful sense. Likewise, the reluctance of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism to provide a submission to the inquiry is very disappointing in view of the impact of the MAI on that portfolio and DIST responsibility for investment promotion. Unless Commonwealth departments provide adequate evidence and written submissions to this important inquiry, public perceptions of secrecy and the way this agreement has been negotiated by Australian officials cannot be allayed. At this early stage of the inquiry, we remain to be convinced that the MAI is in Australia's national interest. We have recommended, therefore, that Australia should not sign the final MAI text—if and when one is produced—unless and until a thorough assessment has been made that it is in our national interest to do so, as the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) has indicated on many occasions.The level of interest in the committee's inquiry and objective review of the MAI involving ordinary Australians vindicate the government's reforms to the treaty making process and the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 1996. These initiatives reflect the government's commitment to good governance and public administration—something missing from the Hawke-Keating approach to treaty making and something for which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) should take full credit. As a result, Australians are now able to have public input into a significant international agreement under negotiation and before any ratifying signature. The committee looks forward to weeding out the MAI facts from the fiction. I commend this important interim report to the House.12:38:004242McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The lack of consultation was of real concern to the committee and, indeed, is reflected in the report. Aside from the select group of entities to which the Chairman, the member for Groom (Mr Taylor), has referred, who have been part of the consultation loop since 1995, the general Australian public and we as their representatives really did not become aware of the significance of the negotiations until very late last year, and it was not until March this year that an actual text was made available on the Internet. That was something of real concern.Treasury's assertions that they have had meaningful consultations with a number of groups regrettably was not supported by documentation. When they were asked to substantiate the fact of those negotiations and consultations, they simply were not in a position to verify or outline the nature of the concerns which were communicated to them.I think it is fair to say that one of the reasons that the public has so much disdain and disregard for politicians generally and for the political process is the fact that they perceive—and indeed to a large extent have—so little involvement in the decision making process. The committee process is one means whereby there can be an element of participatory democracy introduced into the decision making process. But for that to work really necessitates the bureaucracy which stands behind the decision making process to have regard to consultation in a genuine and not a lip-service sense. The consultation has to be meaningful, otherwise the process can be used to justify railroading decisions. The Treaties Committee, in this case, has been quite objective in its criticism of Treasury and also the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism for their lack of appropriate input in the process.The MAI itself is a treaty proposed to facilitate international investment. We have received, quite frankly, a lot of ratbag submissions, but also a lot of genuine submissions concerned about how the treaty would operate in terms of its effect on labour standards, environmental standards, local government planning standards, the interaction between the federal government, state government and local government, and many aspects of culture—whether it is indigenous culture or even the arts. There are a number of very legitimate concerns which have been well articulated to us in over 800 submissions. That means that this is something that this parliament has to have regard to and, certainly, the Treaties Committee has had regard to.There is a lot of misconception about treaties, and that has been reflected in some of what I have called the `ratbag' submissions. International treaties are not legislation from the United Nations or from some supreme body that is designed to take over Australian sovereignty. The mere fact that a nation enters into a treaty is its declaration of its own sovereignty and its decision to participate in that international agreement. But, having said that, Australia should—and we on the Treaties Committee are all alive to this fact—only sensibly enter into a treaty if we are satisfied that entering into that treaty is going to be in the national interest.As the Chairman has indicated, the bureaucracy or those who are advocating a treaty really have the onus on them to satisfy the legislature and those participating in it that it is in Australia's national interest. The Chairman has articulated that with the lack of effort of those involved we just cannot be so satisfied. There is a general and well-founded view that those organisations in the world that do not need protection are multilateral corporations. In many instances they are much more significant than many nation states.We see that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens and to ensure that there is an appropriate reciprocal obligation between corporations and citizens. Again, the concerns that the MAI might override that interaction and the responsibility of government, on the evidence that has been presented to us, certainly seem well founded. Those who are advocating that treaty have a long way to go to satisfy us. (Time expired)12:43:004243Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Like, I am sure, all members in this place, I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents who are expressing concerns about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. As the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the member for Groom (Mr Taylor), and the Deputy Chairman, the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), have both explained, there is a role for the Treaties Committee in this parliament to sort out the fact from the fiction.But, having said all that, the committee, I think, looked at this wholly on the basis of what is in it for Australia—which is the general operating parameter, operating reasoning, of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I have to say that, on the surface, I could not see anything. The MAI struck me as more than a little bit of an international diplomatic joke that was attempted to be played out on the people of Australia. Quite frankly, the ongoing role of the Treaties Committee will flush out whether or not my suspicions are true or false.As the member for Barton said, there is a role for the bureaucracy who have been at the heart of the negotiations of this treaty to prove the case, and to date they have not. They have failed miserably, and I think with a great deal of arrogance and dismissiveness in the way that they conducted themselves. That the Department of the Treasury should front the Treaties Committee with a written submission moments before a hearing takes place I think is an outrage.We have seen this before because, while the Treaties Committee has been in existence only a little over two years, the bureaucracy has been in existence for 100 or more years in this country, and the fact that there is this other level of inquiry, accountability and relating back to the people of Australia is something I think a lot in the bureaucracy are still coming to grips with. But, department by department, the Treaties Committee is quite willing, I believe, to sort this out and ensure the people of Australia have an active role in participating in public discussion as well as formal discussion on matters such as international treaties.The role of the Treaties Committee in this particular one is vital because there may well be some good aspects to sorting out some kind of multilateral arrangements to ensure investments between countries are able to proceed without certain interruptions. But by the same token we cannot allow, particularly in this nation with its fairly unique constitution, its federation style of government, our basic right to determine what is in our best interests—what sort of investments should take place here from other countries—to be eroded.We cannot allow it to occur. We cannot allow our bureaucracy to acquire frequent flier points flipping around the world every six weeks, off to Paris to negotiate a particular treaty. This has been a fact of life, and is one of matters we have uncovered in our discussions and deliberations as a committee. I find it astonishing but it was not until the end of March this year after the foreign minister and, indeed, the Senate referred the matter to the Treaties Committee for inquiry, for public discussion, that we started to find out a few of these things which had been happening behind the scenes. I do not think Treasury for a moment were intending to be covert, but I think what is really good about it is that, as a result of the Howard government's decision to bring in this kind of scrutiny on treaties, we now are able to lift the lid on these sorts of events.I think it is a disgrace also that the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, as stated in section 1.57 of the report, have failed to put forward a submission. They see no need to do it; they see no need to account to the parliament for their deliberations and their views on these sorts of matters. I know that the Department of the Treasury offered a briefing session to senators and members and their staff—and that was very good—but the briefing session in itself was really a one-way street. So I think for too many reasons the opportunities for those who like to create the theories of great conspiracies—the member for Barton alluded to them—are there. I say to those conspiracy theorists in our midst that what they need to know is there are now open and accountable procedures through this parliament, through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, to sort the fact out from the fiction. It is a process that we are going on with. I am pleased that the committee has made one clear recommendation: we should not sign a thing until we determine whether it is, indeed, in the best interests of Australia to sign away on this particular treaty. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Groom wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?4244Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.4245424512:49:004245Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into copyright, music and small business entitled Don't stop the music , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Most people have the view that music heard over the radio is free to air and they can listen to it in their homes, offices and businesses without paying a fee. Many people also have the view that once they have purchased a CD or a tape they have the right to play it wherever and whenever they choose. These commonly held presumptions were challenged recently when small businesses around the country received correspondence asking them to pay licence fees for using music in their businesses. These businesses were playing music on CD, cassette players or the radio. Correspondence had been sent by copyright collecting societies. These particular societies, APRA, the Australian Performing Rights Association, and PPCA, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, collect royalties in the form of licence fees from people causing the public performance of music. These royalties are then distributed to their members, the copyright owners.The committee was asked to conduct an inquiry into copyright music and small business after many industry associations, members of parliament and government departments had received complaints from small business people about the licensing activities of copyright collecting societies. This inquiry examined the complex bundle of rights which exist in music. The committee heard the perspective of users of music as well as the creators.The committee received evidence from people who operated hairdressing salons, corner stores, doctors, dentists, hotels, restaurants and many other small businesses, all concerned about being asked to pay a licence fee to play background music. Of greatest concern was the charging of a fee in order to listen to the radio. For many, the radio was there to provide entertainment and vital information to staff. It was not a device being used to attract or entertain customers. The committee also heard evidence from composers and musicians who emphasised the practical and philosophical importance of the royalties they received for the use of their work. They argued that small business operators benefit from using their music and should pay for that benefit.The committee was advised that the collection of royalties for the public performance of music by APRA and the PPCA was consistent with Australian law and international treaties to which Australia is a party. The committee has tried to strike a fair balance between the music industry and small business interests. The committee believes it has developed practical recommendations which alleviate the concerns of small business without breaching Australia's international trade obligations.As a result of the committee's inquiry, APRA has now agreed to introduce changes to its licensing scheme so that small businesses playing the radio solely for the benefit of staff will no longer have to pay a licence fee. APRA will issue complimentary licences to businesses with fewer than 20 staff who are listening to the radio or television where the music is not intended to be heard by customers of the business or by the general public. The committee believes that this will address the more pressing concerns of small businesses. The committee has been pleased to have been a catalyst for this voluntary solution. Using legislation to force such restrictions in APRA's licensing activities may not have been possible because of our international commitment and could have invited resistance, inflexibility and even litigation. The committee believes that APRA's support for the system will ensure that it will be implemented far more quickly and effectively than a legislative scheme.Some examples of the circumstances in which a complimentary licence will be issued—APRA have provided these circum stances to the committee and they are set out in the report—are: a family-run milk bar or corner store which has a radio or television behind the counter; in the back room of a composite shop or dwelling where the volume is such that customers may hear music in the public access areas, but the intention is to entertain staff during quiet trading periods; a real estate agent's office where the receptionist has a radio on the desk—while the performance is audible to customers, the radio is for the receptionist's own enjoyment—and a cafe playing a radio in the staff-only food preparation area. These examples and others are set out in the committee's report.The committee believes that these recommendations will go some way towards improving the situation for small businesses in their dealings with copyright collecting societies. The committee is pleased it was able to negotiate with APRA before finalising its recommendation with respect to the use of radio by small businesses. This will be a significant gain for small businesses, and it demonstrates the potential of the parliamentary committee system to play an important role in bringing practical compromises to the Australian people.In concluding, I wish to thank the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees, and our researcher, Natalie James, for their contributions to this inquiry and the report. I commend the report to the House.12:54:004246McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I rise to support the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Don't stop the music . I also compliment the secretariat on a job well done. Often, the most intensive debate in these committees is what to title a report. In this case, the report could, I think, because of the actions of one collection society, have been titled How not to win friends and influence people or it could simply have had the subtitle `In your face', because APRA were their own worst enemies—there is no doubt about that. They had a very aggressive collection technique where they literally attended on the doorsteps of businesses. This was followed by very strict letters of demand and even solicitors' notices for debts of a grand total of $37. The amount being requested was, in many instances, as trivial as that—$37 for a year long licence to protect something which is very significant, that is, a performing artist's copyright.Copyright is, as members would know, protection of an artist's asset: their intellectual property. We received evidence from a number of organisations—a number of cultural organisations and religious organisations, together with, of course, the commercial music industry—stressing how important copyright is to the development of the industry. Clearly, people are entitled to participate in the industry for more than love. If the industry is going to sustain itself, there needs to be appropriate recompense and revenue. Hence, the committee was at pains to ensure that the significance of copyright was acknowledged.We think we have come up with a sensible balance. At the end of the day, while I have criticised APRA in particular for their techniques, they assisted the inquiry throughout the collection of evidence and have come up with what we say is a sensible and balanced proposal which will, we think, satisfy their needs and the needs of the small business community in particular. We have suggested—and, no doubt, they will take up the suggestion—an information campaign. The chairman has outlined the system of complimentary licences that they will issue with guidelines as to when they apply.We have recommended that there be cooperation between APRA and the other collection agency, PPCA, regarding their operational methodologies. We have also recommended that the powers of the Copyright Tribunal be clarified or expanded if necessary to give the tribunal its broadest possible powers in this area. We have also recommended a mediation procedure in dispute situations, to be conducted through the Copyright Tribunal.We say that, at the end of the day, in an atmosphere of considerable tension and a lot of aggression, we have come up with a workable solution, but it will take the goodwill of both sides involved. We trust that they will now take up the ball because, if that does not occur, inevitably the parliament will revisit the topic down the track in the not too distant future. I commend the report to the House.12:57:004247Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this report. By the time our committee was given the terms of reference, I had already received numerous complaints from my local business community—my hairdresser, the local jeweller, the snack bar and even the pre-loved book store. These businesses are all owner operated. They use their radios primarily to keep themselves informed of events and news items, and none was prepared to pay the licence fee demanded by the licensing groups.The tone of the licensing organisation's literature was very threatening and this immediately made the business operators angry. All these business people felt intimated by the demand for payment. The fee was relatively low—less than $1 a week—but no-one was prepared to pay it because they perceived it to be a demand for something that they felt was their right.There was also a perception of double dipping by the licensing company. The owners thought that as the radio station had already paid royalties to play the music, why should they, the businesses, have to pay again to listen to it on the radio. The concept of public performance was also poorly defined. Business owners did not consider that playing a radio in a shop workroom was a public performance. Their definition of a public performance was loud music blaring out of the local jeanery or a concert or performance at a hotel or in a club.I must say that one of the unforeseen benefits of this inquiry has been the turning down—and even turning off—of some of the blaring music in the local stores in my Westfield shopping centre. I used to find it most disconcerting to walk through the centre and be confronted with different types of very loud music which seemed to come from every second shop.This inquiry has been very successful. It has galvanised the industry to self-regulate and provided a sensible and workable suggestion for all those thousands of small business operators in Australia. It takes another regulatory burden off the shoulders of small business operators, and those who chose to do so can now listen to their radio without fear of the licence inspector.I would like to thank the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees, and especially Natalie James, for all that they did to support this inquiry. I would like to congratulate APRA for the way in which they assisted us in coming to these recommendations. I commend the report to the House.13:00:004247Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—I am pleased to speak to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee inquiry into copyright, music and small business entitled Don't stop the music . At the outset I would like to thank the committee secretariat, in particular Claressa Surtees and Natalie James, who have done a magnificent job in the presentation of this report.There were many complaints to MPs and government departments concerning the playing of music in small businesses. Small business people were angry and perplexed. They were angry about the manner of the collection. They were also concerned that when they were playing music for the benefit of staff they were taxed on that. Also, they were concerned about the red tape involved. In fact they got so angry the secretariat reported that at the Fremantle markets, when we were doing some hearings in Western Australia, there was a stall with the warning: `Don't listen to the radio—the APRA Nazi spies are everywhere.' I think that epitomised the attitude and reaction of small business to the collection agencies' activities.But they were more than angry; they were also confused. There was more than one collection agency involved and some small businesses that had received letters from both were wondering, `Is this some sort of a hoax or is this actually a fraud?' One of the things we found was that there is great ignorance in the business community about the reason for the collection of these royalties, so education is an important function that needs to be addressed. They were also concerned about what they perceived to be double dipping, that is, if you play the television and radio, isn't the licence already paid? But, of course, further licences or royalties can be required if you are playing that to a public audience, beyond just your own use at home. The concerns were across the board. The attitude amongst the business community was something like, `Isn't music ubiquitous? Aren't we all entitled to listen to it?'In the course of our inquiries we have come up with some positive results, that is, APRA has put a proposal to issue complimentary licences in a number of circumstances which are set out quite clearly in the report. The whole idea is that licences will be given on a complimentary basis to small businesses of less than 20 people where the music is not intended to be heard by customers of the business nor by the general public. I think this is a very good result and shows what committee work can do. I am very pleased to have been part of that process.I know others wish to speak on this issue so I will conclude by saying that it has been a pleasure to work on this committee. I think that an education campaign as outlined in our report is very important. I note that APRA has created a new position of customer services manager in the licensing department and it is also developing industry specific pamphlets and information sheets. I think that APRA has realised that some of its processes could have been done better, and will be ameliorated in the future.13:03:004248Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I was pleased to be part of this inquiry also. In particular, I am pleased at the outcome, to the extent that many small businesses in my electorate, particularly the one-person barber shop, the one-person hairdresser, the one person under the car fixing the truck and so on, who is having the radio there for his or her own entertainment or enjoyment, will be able to continue.I found throughout the inquiry it was rather strange that a somewhat myopic attitude was taken by APRA in relation to this and by some artists who could not understand that small businesses were providing an outlet for their work, through premises that these small businesses were paying for, giving people the opportunity to hear their work and encouraging them no doubt to buy it. They could not see that there was a bit of swings and roundabouts and I found that a little bit odd in the whole inquiry. But I certainly made it clear to them from time to time that there was that swings and roundabout situation. Also I was concerned about overseas royalty collection which seemed to be predominating in relation to the whole collection system. So I do welcome the outcome, I welcome the inquiry and I would urge honourable members to support it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Menzies wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?4248Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.4248424813:05:004248Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Ten years on—A review of the House of Representatives committee system , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—The committee was conscious that to influence the nature and structure of the committee system in the next parliament it was essential that our report be tabled before an election was called. This consideration therefore placed time constraints on the committee which we have been able to meet, I believe, without the loss of any quality in the report.The time frames we set ourselves for the inquiry also did not prevent us from seeking a wide cross-section of views. We talked to committee chairs and deputy chairs, who obviously are members of the opposition, all members of the House, officers of the parliament, others who have experience dealing with committees, such as former witnesses, and the general public, by way of advertising.The present system of committees is essentially the same as the system which was introduced in 1987 and has basically served the House well. In the 38th Parliament, that is, this parliamentary term, members of the House of Representatives can serve on nine general purpose standing committees, 11 joint statutory and joint standing committees, and eight domestic committees. That is a total of 28 committees. The existing committees enable scrutiny of all areas of government.The Procedure Committee addressed three major issues in terms of the committee structure: firstly, the total number of committees; secondly, the need for some joint committees; and, thirdly, the number of committee positions which members of the House are required to fill. We also looked at a rationalisation of standing orders in respect of committees and the conduct of their affairs.In terms of the number of committees, it was a clear conclusion that there were too many. The House general purpose committees provide a balanced and comprehensive coverage and we considered that they should remain and their functions be expanded to include, firstly, the power to select their own references and, secondly, reports of the Auditor-General and petitions that should stand referred.The committee concluded that there is no function of the joint committees which could not adequately be undertaken by a general purpose standing committee—except perhaps Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. However, there are historic and political realities to be accepted, and so we have recommended that all joint committees except for Public Accounts, Public Works, Foreign Affairs and Treaties should not be reappointed in the next parliament. This would mean a reduction in the number of committees to 21. There are also currently simply too many positions for members to fill. Therefore, the committee has recommended a reduction to 10 members each for general purpose standing committees and a reduction in the number of members of the Procedure Committee itself to bring it into line with most other domestic committees. The proposed reduction in the number of committees and in the size of committees will relieve pressure on members and enable them to better fulfil their responsibilities in future on those committees on which they serve. The committee is disappointed at the time allocated to committee matters both in the House and in the Main Committee, and we have recommended that the standing orders be amended to enable the Selection Committee to allocate more time for debate on reports at tabling if so required. We have recommended that reports be referred to the Main Committee for debate in the same week that they are tabled, and we have recommended that procedures be adopted to require government responses within three months and that those responses be debated. To achieve this, it may be appropriate to extend the sitting hours, especially in the Main Committee.The committee supports the recognition of procedures such as seminars, informal discussions and inspections as appropriate inquiry procedures additional to the more formal inquiry processes that have been in operation hitherto.The committee also endorses the use of modern technology as part of the committee inquiry process. We have re-endorsed the conclusions of previous Procedure Committees relating to the proper treatment and protection of witnesses and the disclosures of in-camera evidence.The committee also undertook an extensive restructure of the standing orders as they relate to committees. It is too technical and time consuming to discuss in detail here, but I have to say that I think it is a very appropriate and necessary task.I would like to place on record my thanks and the thanks of my committee to Ms Robyn Webber, the Secretary of the Procedure Committee—who is present in the chamber—and to John Cummins, the inquiry project officer, for their highly competent, professional and outstanding support of the committee throughout the course of this inquiry.I have two final brief personal comments. I was disappointed that opposition members lodged a dissenting report at the last minute when two of them had not been to any of the meetings of the inquiry and the one who had had not raised any objections during deliberations. It seems to me that such behaviour ultimately leads to needless politicisation of committees and their reports. Finally, from my own observation in this parliament, I suspect that committees could be said to be becoming less courageous and less innovative. I believe committees are an important tool of this place, and I would encourage them to display a stronger, independent from government streak in the future. I commend the report to the House.13:10:004250Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The decision of the Standing Committee on Procedure to recommend the non-reappointment of the statutory committees relating to Corporations and Securities, the National Crime Authority and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is opposed by the opposition members of the committee. As these committees relate to the country's crime prevention and security programs, they should remain intact to allow the parliament of the day the opportunity to act as a watchdog in these important areas of Australian security and law enforcement.I also would like to compliment the secretary of the committee, Robyn Webber, the project officer, John Cummins, and the chairperson, the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), and those members of the committee who have been able to spend sufficient time to draw up such a comprehensive report.The review of the House of Representatives committee system has allowed all members the opportunity to express their views on the effectiveness of the system. Some eight members of the House of Representatives made written, constructive submissions indicating on the whole that most members were supportive of the present system. A further five took part in the round table discussion. As indeed the report states, the existing committees enable scrutiny of all areas of government, and the current system has generally served the House well. However, the committee was of the view that, with the passing of time, there was an argument for some rationalisation and modification.One of the major difficulties encountered by members of parliament was that insufficient time was available to attend all the committee hearings that they were committed to. This difficulty could be overcome by reducing the number of committees, reducing the size of the committees, reducing the number of committees each member could sit on or setting a particular period of the parliamentary week aside for committee hearings only. While a case was made out to reduce the number of joint standing committees, there was disagreement as to which committees should be dispensed with and doubts raised as to whether the role of the committees that were not reappointed could be adequately covered by existing committees. The structure of the committee system is a matter for the government of the day and, with an election expected this year, this report of the Procedure Committee gives the incoming government some options for the restructuring of the committee system if they so desire.One drawback of the current committee system is that when public hearings are held during parliamentary sitting weeks they are frequently interrupted by divisions and the call on members' time to perform other parliamentary duties. It is discourteous to witnesses, many of whom travel considerable distances to attend committee hearings, to have their submissions interrupted by divisions or by members of the committee walking in or out to attend to or come from other parliamentary duties. These interruptions are an inefficient way of taking submissions, with broken discussions and some members being unable to return to the hearing. With this government's insistence that Australia should have efficient industries—which we all agree with—it is only right that we should lead by example and also have an efficient parliamentary system.One very positive aspect of our parliamentary committee system that should continue is that committees are able on occasions to get out into the wider community to conduct hearings. I particularly saw the benefits of this during an inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training into issues relating to the employment of young people. During this inquiry the committee travelled to remote parts of Australia to receive evidence from employers and community and school groups. I believe this was very valuable, particularly to the school children concerned, who were not only able to see members of parliament at work but also able to participate in the committee work and have their views recorded in Hansard.There is a need to further promote the work of the committee system to the general electorate. In my discussions with community groups in my electorate, I am occasionally advised that the electorate is not always impressed with the combative nature of some of the proceedings of parliament. I am advised that the general public would like to see more cooperation between the government and the opposition on major issues affecting our country. When I explain that this cooperation does occur in committee hearings and that most committee hearings are conducted in a bipartisan way, I receive a better reaction.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.15 p.m., in accordance with standing order 102C, the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded. Does the member for Aston wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?4251Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4251r5354251Bill presented by Mr McMullan.13:16:004251McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The parliament has heard a lot and the public have heard a lot of discussion about the issue of security recently. I am presenting the House of Representatives and the parliament with a chance to do something positive about security, something positive about security for Australian households and security of the most precious asset most Australian households ever possess—their job and particularly the job of the prime breadwinner in that household.The bill explicitly addresses the circumstances of the corporate scam Patrick engaged in when sacking its work force. The employees of the Patrick labour hire companies were left basically without their two most important rights. They were left without any claim to accrued entitlements, like annual leave and sick pay, redundancy pay and long service leave. These could only be made against their direct employer which turned out, to their amazement and horror, to be a virtual two-dollar Patrick employing company which was then in receivership. They also had lost their right to be protected against unlawful termination. This right was effectively rendered meaningless. Workers could only be reinstated to their direct employer, the Patrick employing companies. But those companies were in receivership and a reinstatement order could therefore be of no practical effect, even though it is clear these workers were sacked illegally.The government has tried to say that the circumstances of a Patrick corporate scam were unique. That is just plain wrong. Any corporate group could organise their structure so that employees were employed by an internal labour hire company. Any employee who is employed in this sort of structure is effectively without any job security. They have a legal entitlement to redundancy pay, et cetera, but there will be no assets to provide these entitlements on termination. They have a legal right not to be sacked illegally but any reinstatement order is unenforceable.That is why our bill is so important. The Patrick scam could happen to anyone. This bill would ensure that it could not happen again. It would give employees a measure of job security. It would do so by making amendments to both the Workplace Relations Act and the Corporations Act.The Workplace Relations Act would be amended as follows. Firstly, new section 170JI would allow the court or commission, when it found that an employee had been unlawfully or unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated, to make the reinstatement order against companies that were related to the direct employer. In the Patrick situation, this provision would have permitted the court to make an order reinstating the sacked employees to other companies in the Patrick group. This provision would therefore ensure that companies could not use the Patrick corporate scam to leave their workers without any effective remedy against unfair and unlawful termination.Secondly, new section 178A would allow employees to claim accrued legal entitlements against a related company of their direct employer in certain circumstances, as the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 does. This provision would have made the Patrick group of companies liable for the accrued legal entitlements of the employees of the Patrick employing companies and render the proposed levy unnecessary.The Corporations Act would be amended through new division 6A, which would provide that, where a company was in receivership, the court could make an order requiring a related company to pay the debts of the other company, including accrued entitlements to employees. Through section 1317HD of the Corporations Law, it would give creditors the right to bring proceedings for the recovery of debts against directors of companies acting in contravention of the Corporations Law. In Patrick's case, this would mean that the employees of the Patrick companies, not just the receivers, would have the right to sue Chris Corrigan and the other Patrick directors for debts arising from breaches by them of the Corporations Law.This is a chance to make the rhetoric of security effective. Together with the wage guarantee fund legislation of the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), it constitutes a package to advance security for Australian families in the face of challenges of a modern economy. Any government genuinely concerned with security would take these bills up.The Senate has already taken initiatives with regard to the corporations legislation in ways similar to those proposed in this bill. I hope when that comes back before the parliament the House of Representatives and the government will support that proposal, as I would wish that the government could see its way clear to taking an action of this sort. It probably could not accept passing my bill; it would be too embarrassing. Let them come back with something to achieve the same purpose, done differently. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business4252425213:22:004252Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises that the former Labor Government created a child-care system which was based on inequitable funding practices such as operational subsidies;(2) agrees that the Government's reform of the child-care system provides for an equitable distribution of money between low and middle income families and the creation of an extra 83,000 places over the next four years;(3) notes and supports the Government's allocation of $4.9 billion to the child-care system over the next four years;(4) calls on the Opposition to stop its campaign of misinformation to parents which threatens to do long-term damage to the child-care sector as a whole;(5) notes that due to this Government's reforms low and middle income families are now better off than under the previous Government; and(6) condemns the former Labor Government for its management of the child- care sector, creating a massive oversupply of centres in some areas and undersupply in others. I have brought on this debate today because the Labor Party's scare campaign in relation to child care is doing damage to private care providers in my electorate of Lindsay. In the last year of Labor, $1 billion was allocated to child care from federal revenues. That was in the 1995-96 budget, which resulted in a $10 billion deficit. In order to increase that expenditure, Labor would have had to increase taxes or go further into debt. In our first three budgets we have managed to spend $4.9 billion on child care, which is nearly $1 billion more than would have been spent under Labor. By proper budgeting, every reasonable need in the community is being met and government spending does not exceed income as a result of chasing votes with extravagant expenditure. Let me assure all parents in Lindsay that the Commonwealth government will still spend up to $115 per child per week subsidising child care. That is $5,520 per year for a family with one child or $11,040 a year for a family with two children. That is almost the cost of a small car per year on child care.The purpose of child care is to enable women or single parents on low incomes who want to work to be able to do so. It is not for families with high incomes in the $70,000 range. In order to increase demand for child care so that centres find it profitable to operate, the Commonwealth also funds child care for non-work-related purposes up to 20 hours per week. This gives stay-at-home-mums the opportunity to have time out for themselves, to duck out for some shopping or socialising or to just do a tidy up without the kids underfoot. For low income families it only costs around $35 for 30 hours of child care, with the remaining costs being borne by the Commonwealth—in the vicinity of $64 for one child.In Lindsay there are 27 private child-care centres providing 1,000 places and 17 centres run by Penrith City Council providing 700 places as well as 500 family day care places, 1,000 places in out of school hours care and 100 other places in assorted care options such as occasional care, community not for profit centres. According to the 1996 ABS census data, there are 11,500 children under five in Lindsay. There were 11,500 children in Lindsay in 1991 according to the same source. In 1991 there were 16 council centres and only five private centres providing centre based care. Historically there was every reason for government to provide child care. No-one else would. However, until the federal government changed in 1996, eight new centres were opening every week. There were no guidelines as to where they would be located and a number of areas were lacking in child-care facilities and options. With four council centres in St Clair no private operator is going to open in St Clair without a level playing field.Taking the operational subsidies off council centres made the playing field more level for the 136,600 children using private centres compared with the 46,300 using council centres. However, there are only 28,000 families receiving the maximum child-care assistance at council centres while there are 96,000 low income families using private centres; 62,000 families in private centres receive part of the child-care assistance and only 24,000 in council centres; and 20,000 high income families use council centres and 40,000 use private centres. Those figures alone show the inequitable funding practices. The money for operational subsidies is now pooled into child-care assistance and low and middle income families are better off by 90c a day, whether or not their children are in council centres.Furthermore, it costs Penrith City Council $2½ million per annum in reduced return on assets and $670,000 per annum on the costs of support services for their centres. This is when in the six months to December 1997 the utilisation rates for Penrith City Council centres was 550 for the 700 places. The private centres have used strong marketing campaigns to maintain full utilisation, despite swipes at them by Penrith City Council stating that their quality of care was less and despite the massive scare campaign conducted by Labor saying that child care was no longer affordable. Parents shop around centres before placing their children and more than 1,000 families in Lindsay are happy to use the private centres, which provide excellent quality care. Penrith City Council has had two years notice to reform its services. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?MF4COBBMr Cobb—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:27:004254Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—If there are two regions in Sydney suffering the most from the Howard government's child-care cuts it is the Greater Fairfield area covered by my electorate and the Greater Penrith area covered by the electorate of the Member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly), who has just moved this motion. She knows it and I know it. The working parents in our electorates certainly know it. Both Penrith and Fairfield City Councils know it. Child-care providers in the area—both private and public—know it. The local and metropolitan press know it. And the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on child-care funding—especially after having one of their hearings in the member for Lindsay's own electorate—also knows it. And yet the member for Lindsay's motion ignores the crisis affecting child care in her electorate. Instead she has concocted some fantasy about how the working parents of her electorate never had it so good.The member for Lindsay has a responsibility; she has a duty to represent her constituents without fear or favour. She has a duty to reveal the true crisis in child care in her electorate. Instead she comes in here and attempts to hide the facts with half truths and outright misinformation. It is an indictment of the member for Lindsay's commitment to her constituents that the member for Chifley (Mr Price) and I have to do her job for her. Anyone reading this motion who was familiar with the reality facing community based child care in western Sydney would be filled with disgust and anger that a representative of that region could so betray her constituency as she is doing now.The member for Lindsay says the working parents of Penrith and its surrounds have got a better deal out of child care thanks to the Howard government. If that is the case, perhaps the member for Lindsay can explain why there have been 767 reductions in the use—or withdrawals—from Penrith City Council's long day care centres since the Howard government's cuts to operational subsidies. Perhaps the member for Lindsay can explain why, since July 1997, 181 working families have totally withdrawn from using Penrith City Council's long day care centres; why more than double the level of withdrawals were from lower income families—parents earning less than $27,000 per annum; why child-care fees at the Penrith City Council's long day care centres have gone up from an average of around $150 per child per week to between $170 and $180; why 47 per cent of those withdrawing from, or reducing their child's hours in, care changed from centre based care to care at home; why 64 of those families in the Penrith area will be using unregulated care by families or friends or taking children to their place of work; why 47 women, whom she is supposed to represent in Lindsay, have reduced their number of working days so that their need for child care and associated costs could be reduced; and why 27 extra women have now ceased work altogether in the member for Lindsay's electorate.The member for Lindsay has, in this House, knowing full well the parlous state of child care in her electorate, brought this motion forward. In not defending these people, and by putting up this spurious motion which not only attempts to hide the truth but misrepresents what is actually happening, she has seriously betrayed her duty and her constituents.Here was I thinking that forcing low income parents to pay an extra $25 per child per week to keep their kids in care was a bad thing when actually, according to the member for Lindsay, it is something they should be glad about. How silly of me! Here was I thinking that cutting services at community based centres, such as hot food, nappies, toys, et cetera, was a bad thing when, according to the member for Lindsay, it is an all-round better deal. Of course! According to the member for Lindsay, it is good news that the children of low and middle income families can now only be attended to by casual staff because of the funding cutbacks resulting in inconsistency of care and the disruption of the children's routines leading to unsettled behaviour. What was I thinking? That this was not really good for the children?The real story of child care in the member for Lindsay's electorate is contained in a quote from the Penrith City Council's submission on child care to the Senate committee inquiry. It reads in part:Quality of care is being threatened in our area as cuts to service provision are made in an attempt to ensure the continued viability of centres. The viability of centres is being jeopardised through the loss of operational funding and the resulting loss of utilisation caused by the increase in fees.Council is concerned about the issue of affordability, since the withdrawal of operational funding has caused a substantial increase in fees and is preventing equity of access to long day care centres for families from all income brackets. Investigations—by Penrith City Council—are indicating that in particular many lower and middle-income families can no longer afford to use centre based long day care.That is the real story of what is happening in the member for Lindsay's electorate, not the fantasy that this motion and she purports to present.The member for Lindsay in putting this motion forward is, I believe, naive, dumb or just plain indifferent to the child-care problems in her electorate. Either way she has sold out working parents living in her community. I for one will make damn sure that they hear about it. Just for the honourable member for Lindsay's information, I wonder why she does not go to speak to a mother in South Penrith who has said, `I have changed now to part-time work from full-time work because of the funding cuts; I can't afford child care.' Consider the hardship of that mother in the Blue Mountains—(Time expired)13:32:004255Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—I regret hearing in this chamber the previous vitriolic outburst. I congratulate the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) for bringing this motion before the House. She has been an extremely diligent member in advocating in the joint party room the needs of families for child care, and I pay tribute to her contribution in that regard.It is very regrettable that the Labor Party constantly puts around stories that we are slashing child care. It is totally wrong. If there is anyone in the chamber who doubts that, they have only to look at the budgetary expenditure for 1995-96, which was the last year of the Labor government. It spent $990.5 million, which was a slash of $88 million on the forward estimates it had in from the year before. The following year, in our first budget, that was lifted to $1,064.7 million—a considerable increase. In the 1998-99 budget it has been lifted again to $1,076.4 million. So it is up nine per cent on the last Labor budget. Even more importantly, it is going to increase by another $250 million over the next three years. That is a quarter of a billion dollars. In the year 2000-01, we will be spending 30 per cent more than Labor spent in its last year of office.As I say, today we are spending $86 million more than the Labor government did. Probably most importantly, we are doing that against a background of the record Commonwealth debt that we were saddled with and a budget deficit of $10.3 billion. So that is a pretty wonderful effort. Results like that have come about only because of the advocacy of the member for Lindsay, who spoke so eloquently in moving the motion.We will be funding another 70,000 to 80,000 places, which will mean that another 140,000 children can access child care as a result of the initiatives we are taking. But, perhaps more importantly, it is not so much a case of the actual increase in expenditure; we have reorganised the child-care budget over the last couple of years.Under the previous government expansion ran amok: it had a gross oversupply in some areas and a serious undersupply in other areas. The relatively well off were being funded and it seemed that the underprivileged were being poorly funded or neglected altogether. We have now got better planning in place to ensure that services will be placed in areas of greatest need rather than having the haphazard growth that existed before. On top of that, we have also got better equity.The withdrawal of the operational subsidy, which went only to community centres, was because only 70,000 families were receiving about a $20 a week benefit. Another 200,000-plus families that were sending their children to private centres were totally missing out. So there has been an equitable redistribution of scarce taxpayers' dollars in that area.The outside school hours care has been totally revamped. It had totally inadequate funding under the previous government. Only in the last week or so, the minister has been able to announce that another 51,000 working mothers who were previously receiving no assistance can now have access and are being funded for the first time. On top of that, 19,000 families will be receiving extra funding. This has come about because we have lifted the income test cut-off of $27,125 a year to $65,743 per year for the first child, and it goes up for the second and subsequent children.I am also pleased to see that funding has been made available over the last couple of years for rural and remote areas. Many towns in my electorate, such as Condobolin, have received the benefit of that, but I would like to see an even further extension to truly remote areas where parents who live so far from a child-care centre can never have access because otherwise they would have to drive several hundred kilometres. Perhaps some small payment could be made to the parents who now teach their children by correspondence. (Time expired)13:37:004256Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—There is an important difference between the government and the opposition in the discussion of this motion. Firstly, the opposition are in favour of both privately provided child care and council and community based child care. The member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) is passionately in favour of private child care but is quite happy to viciously attack council and community based child care. She is saying that child care is better off as a result of this government, yet she has not talked about the $820 million that has been ripped out of child care in the last two budgets. This is not a neutral position as far as parents and child-care centres are concerned.Penrith City Council—predominantly represented by the member for Lindsay—has 17 long day care centres, 704 long day care places, 234 preschool places, 29 occasional child-care places, 405 before and after school care places and 300 vacation care places—a total of 1,672 places. The member for Lindsay is saying that all the parents are better off because of the government's changes. Why is it that 183 families have reduced the number of days they use Penrith City Council long day care centres? Are they financial dummies? Can they not work out their daily or weekly family budgets? How is it that the member for Lindsay knows that they are better off but these families feel they are worse off and are reducing their hours? In the Penrith Council area, 181 families have totally withdrawn from long day care. Are they dummies who do not understand their daily or weekly family budgets? The honourable member for Lindsay says that they must be better off. Why are they such economic illiterates and reducing the hours of child care or totally withdrawing it? Seventy per cent of those who are withdrawing from child care are two-income families—the classic Lindsay battlers trying to pay off a mortgage. Are these two-income families economic illiterates, as the member for Lindsay suggests?There is an issue of affordability with the fee increases so joyously triumphed by the member for Lindsay as outstanding government policy. One of the problems we are having in relation to the fee increases is that 47 per cent of families have not changed from council run or community based child care to the private sector but opted out of formal child care completely. The children are either latchkey children or the families are depending on relatives or family. This is a triumph of government policy, according to the member for Lindsay.In the Penrith City Council child-care centres—these are Penrith City Council's words, not mine, and if the member for Lindsay thinks they are scaremongering or lying she has the opportunity to challenge them—10 per cent of all child-care workers have been sacked. Are we saying that these child-care centres were so grossly overpro vided that there will not be a loss of quality in child care? Of course not. It is the children in Lindsay who are suffering. I want to give you a couple of quotes. A father from St Clair said:Not only has our centre been forced to increase fees, although they have tried to keep these to a minimum, but the child care rebate scheme dropped from 30% rebate to 20% rebate in April 1998 causing further hardship and financial strain on the "two parent workers".A lady from Jamisontown in the Lindsay electorate said:I am a single working mother of two school children and I can't afford to stay at home. And it is so hard to work now!A child-care worker and mother from Claremont Meadows said:The effect on child care as a parent and workers is unfair. It has made it just better off working. Trying to pay the house and bills after child care is now a problem. But at least our centre is trying to stay afloat without cutting quality or raising fees too much. But our children will suffer if the government does not wake up to themselves.(Time expired)13:42:004257Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—There is one response to the speeches we have heard from the Labor Party this afternoon, and that is `low interest rates'. The impact of low interest rates on families is—QI4PRICEMr Price—Every speech you make you talk about interest rates.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—You have to think back to when the Labor Party was last in government. Small business rates were at 20 per cent and mortgage rates were at 17 per cent. You have to look at what that added to the average family mortgage and took out of the take home income. The member for Chifley (Mr Price) has repeated some of the untruths spread by Labor, such as the notion that women are opting out of the work force due to the changes in child care. That is untrue.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not in the habit of stating untruths to the House, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, I will not require him to withdraw.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—The member for Chifley was incorrect in what he said. In fact, work participation rates for women are higher in 1998 than they were in 1996 when the Labor Party left office. Looking at one of the specific changes in child care—the operating subsidy for the community based long day centres—this subsidy was introduced in 1971. It was introduced because it was recognised that the community based centres were looking after more infants, under-2s and children with special needs. In fact, a recent survey showed that, when you looked at the private centres and the community based centres, there was no difference in those three groups. And yet, across Australia, the community based centres—which were getting a $20 a day subsidy—were, on average, only $4 cheaper than the private centres. Private centres make up 70 per cent of the child-care centres in Australia, and they were not receiving this operating subsidy.The Labor Party on this issue are a bit like the successive British governments that kept someone watching the English Channel right up until 1948—a post that had originally been created for Napoleon. They are like the government that continues to spend money when the rationale for it is no longer around. It is wrong to say that there is any difference in quality between the community based centres and the private centres. They are all subject to quality care and accreditation. It is wrong to suggest that we have in any way cut child-care funding. Child-care funding has been increased by 18 per cent since the Labor government's last years in office. In the area of out of school hours care, child-care assistance is now available to 50,000 low and middle income families across Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Statements by Members425842584258Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to congratulate the Blacktown Council on its conduct of the city's festival week and parade. The theme for this event, Celebrating Cultures, was appropriate, falling at the end of National Aboriginal Reconciliation Week and being in a city that is home to over 150 different multicultural groups. Blacktown city has one of the largest Aboriginal populations in the metropolitan area and has a significant link to Aboriginal history. One of the first homes for Aboriginal children taken from their families was set up in Blacktown in 1823. Blacktown is now home to over 235,000 people. Many of these people come from foreign lands, with some 20 per cent of the local population from non-English speaking backgrounds.The street parade and stalls featured many of the city's cultural, community and welfare issues, such as the promotion of the city's local community station by Mr David Cunningham from a special broadcast spot at the festival. This was a real highlight for many observers. David is a very active but disabled member of our community. Other stalls included one on the Blacktown Council's role in providing child-care facilities for its young families. Another stall showed the community's opposition to building an airport at Badgerys Creek, where many thousands also signed protest petitions. There was also the promotion of the city's educational facilities, with students from one of our local colleges, St Andrews, marching in the parade. There was also a promotion of groups providing character development for the city's young citizens, like the Blacktown Air League Squadron and local scout and guide groups. (Time expired)42584258Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I would like in my statement to point out the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in its attitude towards industrial relations. We know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and his party like to model themselves on New Labour in Britain. But I would like to point out where this hypocrisy occurs between their admiration for the British system and what they are trying to achieve in Australia. Mr Blair recently produced a white paper called Fairness at Work . He is trying to walk between appeasing his union mates and making sure that the country does not come to a grinding halt if the unions got hold of it, as they did in the days of the coalminers' strikes.Mr Blair has enshrined again in legislation that the days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing, closed shops and secondary actions—or, as we call them, secondary boycotts—are over. Mr Blair says this in his white paper and that he does not intend to revoke these measures which were put in place by Baroness Thatcher, the then Prime Minister of Britain.The unions in Britain decided that they wanted to take hold of the workshop floors again. As a result, they wanted a simple majority at any one meeting to be the precedent to place the unions in control of that floor. Mr Blair has also rolled over on them in this case. He has said that the recognition would only be for 30 per cent of people. (Time expired)42584258Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—On 25 September 1995 in this place I mentioned the latest Chinese nuclear tests and what the French were doing at Mururoa, the spate of earthquakes on the Pacific Rim and also the volcanic eruptions in Montserrat and New Zealand. I am no scientist but I know the odds are pretty high that if I hit an eggshell with a teaspoon 11 times some serious cracking might occur. By the same token, the earth's crust is equally fragile. I am told the earth's crust of the whole Indian subcontinent region, including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and the Himalayas, is as fragile as an eggshell on a grander scale. Eleven nuclear detonations in a short period of time are infinitely more powerful than a tap with a spoon.I have heard so-called experts say that there is no correlation between underground nuclear explosions and earthquakes in the same region a few days later. It may be so, but I find it passing strange that such a destructive earthquake should hit Afghanistan coinciding with these enormous underground explosions. Who knows how many thousands of people are dead as a result.This is a matter that affects all humans and all countries, not just the warmongers of Pakistan and India. Underground nuclear explosions must be halted now and halted for all time. I would hate to come back into this chamber after the next nuclear explosion and subsequent devastating earthquake to say, `I told you so.'42594259O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I would just like to take a couple of seconds to make an observation to the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott), who made the claim during his contribution on the motion of the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) that there had not been child-care cuts. Just for your information, in my electorate alone there has been $6 million cut by your government from our child-care funding. There are 3,000 child-care places in my electorate, and that effectively works out to a $40 per week reduction from the funding subsidies available for those families for those child-care places. If you do not regard that as a cut, by gee, the people who have lost the $40 do, I can tell you that.42594259Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—The debate in this House has become outrageous. The operational subsidies were quite clearly only worth $5 a day per place. That is $25 a week—and only at council centres. Given the family tax-back initiative, families right across Australia are more than $50 a week better off because of the tax cuts given by this government. If you have one dependent child who is under five and using child care, you are $44.20 per fortnight better off under our government. If you have got two children, you are $51.90 better off per child. These initiatives, as well as a $3,000 a year cut in interest rates that families are no longer paying, mean that the cost of living of fami lies overall is less in Lindsay than with the willy-nilly child-care expenditure you see from Labor.You can see Bob Carr now spending another $10 million in a vote buying, vote grabbing exercise when he clearly does not need to—and he is already carrying a $450 million deficit from last year's budget. Lord help us to know what sort of deficit and debt we are going to run up tomorrow in this year's New South Wales state budget. He is clearly out of control. He has got no control of expenditure and he impacts on the cost of living of the people of Lindsay every single day that he is in government. I will work my damnedest to make sure that he never comes back.42594259Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would like to place on record my congratulations to the Fairfield Lioness Club, which had their 22nd changeover last Saturday night. Fairfield Lioness Club was one of the first lioness clubs established in Australia. I am particularly pleased and proud of the commitment that these women have given to their community over those years. To Chris Chapman, the president, who has taken up the mantle again for her fourth consecutive year, and her band of women, congratulations on a job well done. I know you are small in numbers but you are big in heart and big in commitment.As I said on the night of their changeover, what they have given back to their community cannot even be counted not only in dollars and cents but in the care that they give. At the moment they are adopting as a project the paediatric outreach program, where doctors visit children in their homes so that children can come out of hospital earlier. They are also providing the means and the wherewithal for the machinery that is going to be required for this project under the directorship of Dr Carolyn. I commend the Fairfield Lioness Club for taking up this project in my community as something that is well deserving and as something we certainly have required. Keep up the good work, Fairfield Lioness Club. You are appreciated in the community. Let us hope you go from strength to strength in the membership that you wish to acquire.42604260Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—In continuation of my speech on reconciliation in this House last week, as I said, I believe that reconciliation, sadly, 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, culture or whether or not they have disabilities or, rather, special abilities. That hope is, I believe, 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, with the emphasis on `I'—noticed had intellectual and physical disabilities. When I asked my sons how the two guys with the disabilities coped, my sons answered that there weren't any kids with disabilities whom they noticed and questioned my concerns. What did my sons notice? That these two boys had a great sense of humour, that they 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. To my sons, the only thing they noticed of any difference was that these guys were super cool dudes who could swish a basket like no-one else. Maybe therein lies our answer for reconciliation. (Time expired)42604260Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I refer to a phenomenon which has become extremely disturbing in this country, particularly in the last 12 months—the constant attacks, based on racism, against multiculturalism. Not only are we seeing the Pauline Hanson phenomenon but in general terms increasingly the mainstream media are giving a lot of coverage to the lunatic ravings of certain individuals. For example, in relation to the historical facts with respect to the operations of the immigration program in the last 15 or 16 years, a book has been published by a man called Paul Sheehan. I had never heard of this man until he suddenly became well known and notorious for publishing a book called Amongst the Barbarians. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that every single claimed fact in that book is false or distorted.But that did not prevent the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age from running all the details, all the lies and all the attacks on ministers of immigration and a whole range of individuals. Mostly they were against the Labor Party because Labor was in government for that period, but these people would also do the same against the conservative parties in government. These sorts of attacks are outrageous. They are totally false. (Time expired)42604260Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I would like to commend to the House a paper written by Neil Warren, of ATAX, University of New South Wales, in which he talks about the GST and specifically Labor's `Clayton's GST'. He points out that after Labor won the 1993 election they went on to increase the wholesale sales tax by two per cent across the board. They increased the wholesale sales tax on cars from 15 per cent to 22 per cent. They also expanded it to include households goods and things used for renovations and so on. Dr Warren makes three points. He points out that Labor introduced this change to fund their income tax cuts which they never delivered and they offered no compensation. He said that in the distribution it was no different to Fightback and it was actually quite inefficient by taxing production.It highlights the fact that we have a wholesale tales tax system that is a 1930s system. It is a system in which we tax cars but exempt horseshoes and horses. We exempt tallow. Can anyone explain that to me? We have sinks taxed at 12 per cent but the pipe leading to the sink is not taxed. Soft drinks are taxed at 22 per cent and cordial at 12 per cent and water is tax exempt. Pet food is taxed at 22 per cent, but if you buy the meat for the pet food at a butcher's it is exempt. Wedding rings are exempt, but engagement rings are taxed at 32 per cent.Can the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) explain that? Can the shadow Treasurer, the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), explain that? If they can, perhaps they should explain whether frozen yoghurt should be taxed at the rate for food or ice cream. Can they explain that?42614261Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I am very pleased that the honourable member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) mentions Dr Neil Warren because we all know that John Hewson and John Howard and Neil Warren and Peter Reith were all as one during 1993 with respect to the GST debate. What are Australians now supposed to believe following the comments from Dr John Hewson and Dr Neil Warren? Given that Dr Hewson has now said that a rate at 15 per cent is inevitable, how can Australians possibly be expected to believe that the real intention of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is to have a GST rate at least at 15 per cent?When will the Prime Minister, having been given the opportunity to do so in question time last week, tell the Australian community what the real rate will be, whether it will apply to health, whether it will apply to education, whether it will apply to child care and all those essential services that low income earners in the community, in particular, rely upon? When will he explain how he intends to compensate those who live in rural and regional Australia, who will be disproportionately affected by his goods and services tax?It is about time the Prime Minister fessed up. It is about time he put his GST plan on the table so that we as an opposition can be given an opportunity to give it the proper scrutiny it deserves before going to a federal election. Anything less than that—if we are not given that opportunity—and the Prime Minister can forget about claiming he has any mandate to introduce a goods and services tax in this country. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being nearly 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice426142614261Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Prime Minister has seen the advice of the last Liberal leader to propose a GST, Dr John Hewson, that a 10 per cent GST is:. . . definitely too low and I don't think will be believed by the electorate. There'll be an expectation that it is going to be put up.And:If you go too low, people will just assume it is going to go up.What guarantee will the Australian public have that the rate of a GST will never ever go up after it is introduced other than the Prime Minister's word?4261Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There is something supremely hypocritical, if not completely sanctimonious, about this. I want to ask everybody to pause for a moment. This is a question relying upon the reported remarks of a predecessor of mine whose policies in the 1993 election the Labor Party completely opposed. The question is asked by a man who, unlike the man he opposed in 1993, was unwilling to tell the Australian public what he intended to do if he got re-elected. The last person who has any credibility to ask John Howard questions based on John Hewson's remarks is Kim Beazley—l-a-w, law Kim Beazley, who absolutely deceived the Australian people before the last election. I am very happy to say that the coalition's tax policy for the next election will be launched at the right time.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Who are you going to wheel out? Gorton?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I can assure those sitting opposite that it will be a good policy.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Gorton is your only former leader you have got to support you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It will be very well received by the Australian people.42624262Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the initiatives being taken in New York and Geneva by the government on the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan? What are the implications for the international community of this testing?4262Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question. I recognise the interest he has in these extremely important issues. The Australian government has made abundantly clear its strong condemnation of the nuclear testing by both India and Pakistan. Frankly, we are profoundly disappointed that Pakistan saw fit over the weekend to add to the folly of its tests of last week.This morning I met with the Australian High Commissioner to Pakistan, Mr Geoff Allen, whom we recalled for consultations following Pakistan's first set of tests during the course of last week. I discussed with him the government's handling of the serious security implications of Pakistan's and India's actions. In addition to specific measures the government has already announced against India and Pakistan—and the House would be familiar with those—Australia is taking action in international fora to drive home the message that nuclear testing is unacceptable.Australia has taken the lead in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by calling for the convening of a special session of the conference on disarmament. This historic special session will take place tomorrow, 2 June, and will provide an opportunity for the international community to express its abhorrence of nuclear testing and the desire for India and Pakistan to join the global non-proliferation regime. We will use all appropriate multilateral and regional fora to promote urgent consideration of means to address the security implications of India's and Pakistan's actions and the broader nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament challenges. Australia has long accepted that South Asia presents particular security challenges, but we resolutely do not accept that a nuclear arms race is the way to address these challenges.Once again, Australia calls on both India and Pakistan immediately to sign and ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. We will be taking a number of measures over the next few days and weeks to encourage the signature by those two countries of that treaty. We also would like to see India and Pakistan accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Australian government has been very active in Geneva in trying to get started negotiations on a so-called `cut-off' treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. We hope that the international community will use this occasion, the occasion of the testing of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan, as a catalyst to get those negotiations for a `cut-off' treaty under way.I strongly urge India and Pakistan to cease their dangerous brinkmanship, to avoid making provocative statements or taking acts which could increase the possibility of a precipitate response. I hope that both sides would look to resume as soon as possible bilateral dialogue on important outstanding issues, in particular, the question of Kashmir.42624262Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in New Zealand not only has the GST rate gone up 25 per cent since introduction but also that the initial compensation package has been subject to major subsequent erosion? How can you guarantee that any Australian GST compensation package would never ever be similarly eroded here?4262Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not a commentator here any more than anybody else is on the New Zealand economy, but let me take the opportunity of reminding those who sit opposite that one of the reasons why in the 1980s the New Zealand economy recovered in a spectacular fashion—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Ha, ha!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, anybody who understands the history of the New Zealand economy will also remember that the tax to which you refer was introduced by a New Zealand Labor government.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on the front bench of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It was the finance minister in the New Zealand Labor government of David Lange who introduced the taxation reform. Despite the comfort that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition apparently thinks he draws from the New Zealand experience, it is good to remind the Deputy that the reforms that were undertaken in New Zealand have delivered to the New Zealand economy a strength that was undreamt of in the early 1980s.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Apart from the fact that the New Zealand economy is not too flash at the moment, the question was about the erosion of the compensation package, the inevitability of that occurring over time and the application of that New Zealand experience to Australia. Can the Prime Minister answer it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of Opposition will raise his point of order in the correct way and not enter into an argument upon the subject. The Prime Minister is within the standing orders.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reforms that were undertaken, at first by the Labor government of Lange in New Zealand and subsequently by the National government led by Mr Bolger, have resulted in the New Zealand economy now being in a far more competitive position than it was in the early 1980s. As to the details of—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on the opposition front bench will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—their tax system, I have absolutely no intention of answering for it; you go and ask the New Zealand government about it.42634263Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—Can the Prime Minister inform the House how Australia's present wholesale tax system is penalising our exporters?DT4CREANMr Crean—On, come on! That is the same as asking for—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.4263Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Australian taxation system at present is the system that the Labor Party wants to keep, the system that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition specifically have said they wish to keep. Last week, I think it was on Perth radio, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that, in his view, the wholesale tax system at present should be kept as it is with very little variation. I found that, in the context of the current tax debate, a very interesting proposition. You have the leader of the Australian Labor Party saying that the present wholesale tax system ought to be maintained.The present wholesale tax system inflicts a very heavy penalty on Australian exporters. It has been estimated that the annual burden, the annual negative impact, of the existing wholesale tax system on Australian exporters is almost $5 billion. In other words, a figure of almost $5 billion a year is the extra penalty which is carried by Australian exporters because of the wholesale tax system. The Business Council of Australia has estimated that the effect of cascading taxes on exporters has a negative impact of $4.7 billion annually. The cascading effect of Australia's indirect taxes is estimated to add anywhere from four to nine per cent to the cost of Australian industry.One of the major reasons why we want to reform the Australian taxation system is to give to the exporters of Australia a fairer go. We want to take that $5 billion load off the backs of Australian exporters. We want to say to Australian exporters that they will be able to compete on an even basis with exporters from other countries.Unlike the Labor Party, the coalition is prepared to stand up for Australian exporters; unlike the Australian Labor Party, the coalition is prepared to tackle the penal, inequitable way in which the existing wholesale tax system affects Australian exporters. There is one message that is coming out of this taxation debate loud and clear for Australian exporters: if you want to tie one arm of Australian exporters behind your back, vote for Mr Beazley; if you want to reform the taxation system, if you want to get rid of the wholesale tax system, vote for the coalition. Vote to remove that $4.7 to $5 billion burden on the backs of Australian exporters.42644264Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the government is proposing to give a $1 billion tax concession to help business meet the up-front cost of introducing a GST? Will he confirm that that concession is only a small proportion of the nearly $7 billion in start-up costs that has been estimated by the National Tax and Accountants Association? Prime Minister, why are you imposing this compliance nightmare on small business at the same time that they will be wrestling with the year 2000 millennium computer bug?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—That is rubbish, and you know it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will remain silent.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, will the GST not be the Howard 2000 bug for one million small businesses?4264Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The report to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was empty speculation, and I have nothing more to say.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent—the member for Hotham, the member for Cunningham.42644264Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what is the government's response to data released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? What does this information indicate about the strength of the Australian economy and the outlook for employment?4264Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he would be interested to know that today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures both in relation to retail trade and in relation to stocks and sales. In relation to retail trade, retail trade, seasonally adjusted, grew by 0.2 per cent in April after rising 0.7 per cent in March. Over the year, to April of this year, retail trade grew by a very healthy 5.2 per cent. In relation to stocks and sales, total private non-farm stocks increased significantly in the March quarter, implying a 1.7 percentage point contribution to GDP expenditure growth in March.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What is your projected figure for this year?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What was your interjection?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Building up stocks.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You think that is good. Yes, a 1.7 per cent contribution is a good contribution to growth.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes, building up stocks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.CT4Mr COSTELLO—GDP is gross domestic product, just in case the Leader of the Opposition needs further information in relation to it. A large part of the rise in stocks occurred in manufacturing and wholesale industries, which experienced strong sales growth. Manufacturing sales grew 2.6 per cent in the quarter, consistent with indicators from other surveys. The ABS publication also includes data on manufacturers' and wholesalers' sales expectations, suggesting expectations are for solid sales over the next few quarters. The retail trade and the stocks figures are positive indicators in the Australian economy at a time when, in our region, there is severe dislocation in relation to economic growth. One of the reasons why retail trade has held up in Australia is historically low interest rates. Low interest rates do not just come by chance; low interest rates are the result of good policy. It was the policy of this government to get the budget position right that contributed to low inflation. It was the policy of this government to get inflation under control which contributed to low interest rates. It was the policy of this government to retire Commonwealth debt which contributed to low interest rates and the benefits they have given to home buyers and small business. None of these things comes by chance and it would be folly in the extreme to think that now would be the time to risk low interest rates on the profligate failure of Labor Party economic policy. After 13 years of failure they seek another go at high deficit, high debt, high interest rate, high inflation economy. One of the things that this government can say is that over the last couple of years it has pursued against opposition right through in its budget policy good economic policy—and that good economic policy will continue.Distinguished Visitors426510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I formally recognise Ms Evelyn Scott, Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, and Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, Chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in the gallery. Gatjil, apart from all his other qualifications, was a very distinguished representative at our Constitutional Convention. Welcome to you both. In the gallery upstairs, I notice the Hon. Ted Pickering, whom I would also like to welcome.Questions Without Notice426542654265Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer now confirm, following yesterday's Sunday program, that there were in fact detailed Treasury minutes prepared in January and February 1996 describing some $800 million in annual tax avoidance by high wealth individuals and proposing a detailed legislative strategy for its recovery? Does the Treasurer deny receiving similar advice from the Australian Taxation Office after he came into office? Does he recall saying to Laurie Oakes in May 1996, in relation to that $800 million:I have advised the Tax Office to do everything they can to find it.How does he now explain targeting for recovery only one-eighth of that amount and, in particular, failing to take action on eight of the nine specific legislative measures in relation to discretionary trusts which were proposed for action by the tax office in 1996?4265Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—This government has recovered much more than $800 million from high wealth individuals through its measures in relation to tax—much more. In relation to winding down Labor's infrastructure borrowings, we saved billions.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—How many of those nine have you done?CT4Mr COSTELLO—In relation to winding down Labor's R&D syndicates, we saved billions.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—How many of those nine have you done?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Canberra.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In relation to the superannuation surcharge—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—WI4REITHMr Reith—Frivolous again.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is not frivolous at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will remain silent!LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—What is this one about?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is not in his seat. He will remain silent or he will be outside this chamber.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent, or they will be joining him!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They have put him there because they think he is exceptionally attractive.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition has no point of order, I will call the Treasurer.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point of relevance is this: it was $800 million specifically related to evasion by high wealth individuals and eight of the nine propositions related to the use of discretionary trusts. That is what the question was about and the Treasurer has done nothing about answering it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. The Treasurer is entirely within standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The question was about what the government has done to secure tax from high wealth individuals.DT4CREANMr Crean—Like Senator Parer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent!CT4Mr COSTELLO—You are the king of evasion for high wealth individuals, aren't you, Hotham? We know all about the R&D syndicates in the back seat of the Roller—and it is still Labor policy to bring back the R&D syndicate. You are worried, are you, that high taxpayers are paying too much tax? Mr Speaker, they fought us hardest on the R&D syndicate because it was one of the mechanisms that the member for Hotham's wealthy friends used.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. I request the Treasurer to direct his reply through me.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order but it was not that point of order—although it could have been on that—it was on relevance. He is way off the issues related to discretionary trusts. He is irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Treasurer is responding within standing orders but I suggest that he responds through the Speaker and not directly across the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The other thing I want to remind the House of is that when I became Treasurer we became aware of the largest haemorrhage of the Australian taxation system which was worth billions of dollars.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is entirely within standing orders. He has barely said enough at the moment for you—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—He was not talking about—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask both gentlemen at the table to sit down. The standing orders allow reasonable flexibility in the answering of questions. The Treasurer at the moment is certainly a little wide of the specifics but he is within the ambit of the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am talking about the measures which the government has taken to collect taxes from high wealth individuals. I can disclose to the House that the scheme which the government was alerted to, which cost the revenue more than any other single measure, of the order of billions of dollars, which made it optional to pay taxation if you earned over $500,000, was the use of negatively geared infrastructure borrowings which this government closed and the Labor Party opened. The Labor Party opened, back in the early 1990s, infrastructure borrowings which caused the biggest haemorrhage on the Australian taxation system for high wealth individuals which this government had to close.DT4CREANMr Crean—You have nothing to base this on! What are you on about?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I regret the fact that it had been opened and I regret the fact that billions of dollars were lost before this government actually closed it down. I am also interested to hear the member for Holt talk about discretionary trusts—that is your latest target, is it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will answer his question through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Listen to the press release issued by the then Treasurer, Ralph Willis, on high wealth individuals—taxation of trusts—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Which you walked back from.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, listen to the words. He said:Trusts provide an appropriate structure to meet a legitimate range of needs such as for charities, educational, non-profit organisations, deceased estates, a variety of family purposes—Listen to this—and for solicitors and other professionals. Honourable members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Wait. Listen to this—The government will not interfere with these arrangements.That was the press release of 11 February 1996 on high wealth individuals in relation to discretionary trusts. The Australian Labor Party says, `Oh, we're against discretionary trusts.' Leave aside the fact that you had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 years—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. He was asked whether he received the same advice as we did on discretionary trusts, whether he followed it and, if not, why not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is answering it entirely in accordance with standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am referring directly to the advice in the situation as it was—leave aside the fact that there was no move on discretionary trusts for Labor's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth year.On 11 February 1996—which was what? Four or five weeks before the March 1996 election—when they suddenly discovered an interest in trusts—this is what they said. They said in relation to this that they served a legitimate number of purposes, they provided an appropriate structure to meet a range of legitimate needs—charities, educational, non-profit, decreased estates, family purposes, solicitors and other professionals—and that `The government will not interfere with these arrangements.'The Australian Labor Party's interest in trusts is totally phoney, totally cooked up.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What level of income.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There is no reason to believe that they would take any different attitude than they did in 13 years of government. When they looked at the thing they decided that they would not. There it is, it is in black and white—11 February 1996.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think that the Treasurer has completed his answer.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—We will come back to it.42674267Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Minister, what are the export figures for the 10 months of this financial year, and how is the government ensuring Australia's export performance is maximised during the current financial and economic instability in Asia?4267Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. I know she is a very vigorous support of exporters in the Dawson seat, including the $500 million of sugar exports which flow through the port of Mackay, and the coal exports through Abbot Point, Hay Point and elsewhere.I am able to inform the House that, for the period from 1 July 1997 to 1 May 1998, the first 10 months of this financial year, exports of goods and services were $94.31 billion—an increase of 10.5 per cent over the 10-month period of the previous financial year. Imports over the same period were $97.44 billion—up 13.5 per cent. Clearly, in that circumstance, given all the challenges the Australian economy is facing and given what is happening in Asia, that is a very satisfactory set of figures which I am now able to present to the House for the first time. In fact, rural exports are up 6.7 per cent, non-rural exports are up 13 per cent and services exports are up 3.1 per cent over the first 10 months of this financial year.This is a gold medal performance by our exporters. It is a fantastic effort by small business, by medium business and, indeed, by large business in exporting to the world. I know that if you accept the logic of one, the shadow minister for trade—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Who?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The member for Perth is not the shadow minister for trade any more—it is someone up there in the Senate. I think the shadow minister for trade is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Peter Cook.We have brought about 273,000 extra jobs as a consequence of this climb in exports. This has come about with the help of the policies pursued by the government and by me as Minister for Trade. Firstly, we have diversified our markets beyond Asia. Exports to Egypt are up over 50 per cent. Exports to South Africa are up over 30 per cent. Exports to Iran are up over 70 per cent. Exports to Europe and Northern America are holding up very well indeed. There has been a lot of market diversification, reflecting the facilitation provided by Austrade and other government agencies. Secondly, we have put real effort into bilateral arrangements, as I have mentioned previously—not just with Mexico, but in a range of other directions. There have been regional and multilateral negotiations as well.There is a very helpful person sitting behind me on the left. He is hard-edged, but he is helpful and he has a very nice character. The Treasurer of Australia has been very helpful in presenting a budget surplus. The thing that has helped exporters even more in the circumstances we face with the economic firestorms in Asia is a federal budget surplus of $2.7 billion. Had we still had the Beazley budget deficit of $10½ billion we would not have these trade figures for the first 10 months of this financial year.I have been fortified in saying that by the press gallery. I know that they now accept that, in their professional role, they have a right to an opinion, they have a right to an intelligent opinion and they have a right to state that opinion. So, when I asked them all at a doorstop on Friday afternoon whether they felt our trade figures would be this good if we had had a $10 billion deficit this financial year, their silence was absolutely admirable. In fact, they concurred with that notion.We have helped our exporters where it counts. I have to say there is no such thing as a level playing field—we recognise that. We are providing facilitation of our exports. Our figures for the first 10 months of this financial year are outstanding in all the circumstances.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Self-induced circumstances.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.42684268Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen reports about plans to mine the Great Barrier Reef? Has the Prime Minister also seen reports of Premier Borbidge's equivocal response that there are `no plans' to mine the reef? Prime Minister, why has your Minister for the Environment expressed concerns to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, about plans to allow mining on the reef? Will you guarantee that, under your government, there will never ever be mining, mining exploration or drilling that would affect the Great Barrier Reef?4268Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Of course we will.42684268Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer report on outcomes from the APEC finance ministers conference in Canada last week? What steps are being taken to support economies now in distress from financial instability and economic downturn?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Ring the bell!5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Ding, ding, ding!4268Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am pleased you are all watching; I like to entertain you. Small things amuse small minds and we like to keep you entertained.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Could I suggest that the members of the opposition will remain silent or I will be ringing the bell.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In fact, we will keep you entertained in opposition for a very long period of time. Can I report, in answer to the question from the member for Page, for which I thank him, that this was a very successful APEC meeting in Canada. All of the economies of the APEC region were represented, including those that have visitor status and will be admitted at the next meeting: Russia, Peru and Vietnam.As you would expect, the main topic of the conference was financial instability in the Asian region and its working out into the real economy. It is estimated that the Korean economy could contract by 3.8 per cent through the year to March 1998 and the Malaysian economy by 1.8 per cent through the year to March 1998. Hong Kong's econ omy contracted by two per cent through the year to March, and this gave it the first negative growth in 13 years, while in the Philippines economic growth slowed to 1.7 per cent.It is becoming increasingly clear that a large part of the problem in the Asian region was insufficient financial sector regulation and the difficulty in separating the financial sector from the corporate sector. As a result, discussions focused on strengthening financial regulation in financial sectors and improving corporate governance. The Australian government has been in the forefront of reforms in these areas with the new wave of legislation introducing the Wallis recommendations which will ensure that Australia has world's best practice in relation to financial regulation. The Australian government has been in the forefront of corporate governance issues with its corporate law economic reform program, which is designed to strengthen Australia's corporate law and give it a stronger economic focus.After discussions in Canada, the Australian government was able to offer to play a central role in new programs directed at improving the training of regulators in banking and securities sectors in the Asia-Pacific region. The Australian Securities Commission and the Reserve Bank will be involved in helping to run seminars to improve training standards, contributing to regional training efforts through institutions such as the South-East Asian Central Banks Research and Training Centre and the Asia-Pacific Regional Committee of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. We will be contributing with better coordinating regional and bilateral training efforts and we will be improving the training culture in national financial sector regulatory agencies.As a result of the steps that we have taken to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the external challenge, Australia is one of the economies in the Asia-Pacific region which is now experiencing continued growth. I also pay tribute to the hard-edged but helpful man behind me on my right, the Minister for Trade, who has spearheaded Australia's introduction to new export markets and has spearheaded a very successful trade strategy that Australia should be concentrating on markets not just in the immediate region.With the external challenge of the nature and the dimension that it now is in the Asia-Pacific region, it is imperative that Australia continue to deliver good economic policies, sound budget settings, low inflation, low interest rates, reduction of government debt—the policies which this government has been putting in place to strengthen the Australian economy against the external challenge. Now is not the time to depart from good economic policy. Now is not the time to listen to the misguided and ignorant populism of the Australian Labor Party. Now is the time to develop strong economic policy to protect Australia from an external challenge and to make sure the basis of the Australian economy is kept strong.42694269Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It follows the question to him in this House last week when he was asked if it was true that the government members consultative task force on taxation reform were told to not make recommendations to the government, to which he replied, `No, no, no.' Prime Minister, are you aware that this task force was directed by the Treasurer, at its inaugural meeting, to make no recommendations to the government? Prime Minister, as I was an inaugural member of the task force until my resignation from the Liberal Party, will you give me and my electorate of Lowe an assurance that members of parliament who served on the task force will not be blamed by you for any shortcomings in the tax package you intend to present to the Australian people?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. Before I call the Prime Minister—4269Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, wait a minute. When I have some silence on both sides—Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Can I say to the honourable member for Lowe that, as it happens, his timing is interesting. The Treasurer and I will be meeting the members of the task force together this afternoon. I am quite sure that we will be, as we always are, receptive. I have got to say, Paul, you should have been there, mate. But you decided otherwise. While I am on my feet, could I commend to the electors of Lowe a vote for Mr Robert Lee, the endorsed Liberal Party candidate, for the next election.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has he completed his answer? He is sitting down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He has concluded his answer. You have no point of order? In that case, I call the honourable member for Forde.42704270Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry, member for Forde. Has the member for Lowe a point of order?ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Yes, I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—It goes to relevance, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am afraid the Prime Minister has finished his answer. The point of order is therefore no longer pertinent. The member will resume his seat. Members will remain silent.Mr Vaile interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister for transport will remain silent. I call the member for Forde.6K6Mrs ELSON—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. As the minister will be aware, today marks the 50th anniversary of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme—the PBS. Can the minister inform the House how the PBS has fared under this government and whether there have been any significant public comments on the PBS?4270Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. It is not often that I get to announce a golden anniversary, but today is actually the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme on 1 June 1948.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Who set it up?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It was the United Australia Party government that attempted to introduce this first, in 1939, and it did have some controversy.K26LATHAMMr Latham—You backed down to the doctors.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will remain silent.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 June 1948 said it believed:Few doctors will participate in the scheme which provided essential medicines free of charge.It is very comforting to know that, 50 years later, not much has changed! The pharmaceutical benefits scheme per se is a great scheme and it is going very strong. In some respects it is leading the world. Certainly it leads the world in the way that we list new drugs onto the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, with an evidenced-based approach whereby drugs have to pass certain hurdles of cost effectiveness and therapeutic effectiveness.Fifty years ago, there was no pharmaceutical industry to speak of. Pharmacists would make up themselves such things as ointments, mixtures, emulsions, suppositories and eye drops. They went by the unusual name of extemporaneous compounding. Just as these vestiges are disappearing today from the PBS and have been replaced by commercial products, so the pharmaceutical industry has transformed itself, and there are very many very high cost preparations now on the scheme. For example, in the last two years we have been able to bring onto the pharmaceutical benefits scheme betaferon—for relapsing multiple sclerosis—which will cost $20 million this year, and Olanzapine, a new drug for severe schizophrenia, which will alone cost $13 million. The two of them add about 1½ per cent to the PBS in terms of cost. I realise not everybody in this place would have a detailed working knowledge of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, nor should they be expected to, but you would think the shadow minister for health might know the first thing about it.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Too optimistic.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will restrain their enthusiasm.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—One of my colleagues says `Too optimistic', and I guess that is—from the person who confuses a cholesterol lowering drug with a sugar pill. On the AM program on 21 May, the shadow minister for health was being asked about Labor policy. The reporter said:Michael Lee, Labor was the first party to think about introducing co-payments, weren't they?The shadow minister replied:Labor certainly toyed with the idea—which is interesting, Mr Speaker, because they actually introduced them—but we found our experience with the introduction of co-payments with pharmaceuticals that it had no impact on the demand for services.He was asked again:Didn't Mr Richardson and Mr Keating have an argument about it?He answered:No, no, I think you've got that mixed up.He is the one who has it mixed up. But then he went on to repeat:The introduction of co-payments for pharmaceuticals did not make a difference for demand for services.That is news to anyone who works with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In the journal Pharmicoepidemiology and Drug Safety of 1996 , there is an academic article called `Prescription drug utilisation following patient co-payment changes in Australia', and I will table this for the benefit of honourable members. Basically the results were as follows:There was a significant decrease in the level of prescriptions for discretionary drugs associated with the co-payment changes by approximately 758,000 prescriptions. Prior to the co-payment, discretionary drug prescriptions were increasing by 16½ thousand a month, while afterwards they reduced by 3,300 a month . . . There was also a significant decrease in the prescription of essential drugs associated with the co-payment changes of approximately 816,000 prescriptions. This is extraordinary given that, when this change was actually introduced into the parliament in 1990, the shadow minister for health actually spoke on the bill on 12 September 1990. In this House he extolled the need for change to the pharmaceutical benefits system because of the high cost increase and to do something about the demand for drugs. Clearly he knew what he was talking about, but when it comes to actually having to try to defend the scheme now, he is prepared to show he has no knowledge whatsoever of the basic health economics that apply. That is very disturbing given that we are two years and three months into this parliament. Basically in this job you can either be constructive or destructive, and this shows quite clearly that, one, the shadow minister for health knows nothing about his portfolio and, two, he will take the opportunity to be destructive no matter what the truth.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was intending to table a document.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Yes, thank you.42714271Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, last week, in answer to the direct question I put to you on the matter, you denied that the government had instructed the government's backbench tax committee to produce no recommendations. Having failed to answer the question from the member for Lowe today, will you now explain how you have not misled the House?4271Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have a look at what I said last week before I answer that.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh, oh!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When your colleagues are silent. You have a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I table the Hansard in which three questions were asked by me, the answers to which were `No', `No', `No'?Leave not granted.42724272Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of the government's recent initiatives designed to ensure that the automotive industry remains competitive into the 21st century? What has been the industry's response to the policy initiatives?4272Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—I welcome the question from the member for Makin because it is in her electorate that very many of the workers at the Elizabeth plant of Holden live. Therefore, when I visit the area, which is quite frequently, I hear from her of the concerns that those workers have for their employment there and for the general state of the South Australian economy.It is very pleasing indeed to be able to say that, last week, General Motors Holden announced a significant development in relation to their plant at Elizabeth. This is in direct response to the government's policy initiative last year, which was set down on the criteria of getting investment in Australia, getting research innovation in Australia and getting access to export markets in Australia. It is based on those criteria that industry policy for the auto industry came down. As a consequence of that, the certainty and security that corporations need for that sort of investment were put in place.Toyota cemented their export production at Altona and continues to go ahead at a faster rate. But the development at Elizabeth is really quite exceptional in so far as there is now a second production line. Left-hand drive vehicles will be produced there for an export market, in the Middle East and later in South America. These will produce roughly a billion dollars a year in export income and a third of the production of Elizabeth will now be for the export market. This is very good not only for the people who live in the seat of Makin but in the whole of Australia because it produces jobs right through the auto industry and the component areas.Policy for the government is certainly working across the board. Just to complement what the Treasurer said about it, I draw the House's attention to an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal, which is particularly important because it shows the way in which the government's policies have been successful. In a recent edition, it says:Australia's competitive edgeThe economy makes strides and ranks high on many international measures.I would recommend it to all those who have a chance to read it. It completely secures the forecast that the government will make, that all industry will respond to the initiatives of the December industry statement and that the investment that will flow from it will produce employment in this nation. It will produce innovation and it certainly will produce excellent incomes for the whole of Australia.42724272Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it follows the answer just given. Does the Prime Minister recall his statement, when announcing the automotive tariff freeze almost a year ago:This is a package. If it is amended in any way the package will be off. I ask the Senate to guarantee immediate passage.Can the Prime Minister confirm that, one year later, the legislation putting the automotive package into place has not been brought before the parliament and is not even on the pre-poll priority list of your government? Prime Minister, what is your understanding of the meaning of the word `immediate'? Will you guarantee that you will not be backsliding on the car industry plan, never ever?4272Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Devastating. Absolutely devastating questions. The member for Hotham and I think the member for Batman and a number of other frontbenchers in the Labor Party would no doubt have been present at the annual dinner held by the major automotive group here in Canberra last Monday night. In case there are other members of the House who might have wanted to be there could not get there, I inform the House of the ringing endorsement my government received from the industry for the quality of the decisions that we have taken in relation to the motor vehicle industry. Our policy decision was widely acclaimed by the motor vehicle industry. Our policy decision has saved thousands of jobs.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance, not to the plan which was our plan, after all, but when he is intending to legislate for it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is entirely irrelevant to a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—When will the Prime Minister legislate? Haven't you let the industry down by saying a year ago that you would do it immediately?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely within the standing orders.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The policy we announced was a great policy. The policy we announced will be fully implemented. The policy that we announced has the support not only of the industry but also of the trade unions involved in the automotive industry. The legislation will be introduced and we will honour in full what we announced.42734273Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform this House of the range of measures the government has taken to support communities such as Townsville in rural and regional Australia pursuing employment and training opportunities within their region?4273Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. He has been a great supporter of the development of opportunities for small businesses to establish in the electorate of Herbert through the business incubator at Thuringowa. It has been a highly successful exercise and I know the member for Herbert has supported it along with many other initiatives in the Townsville area.The government's policies are aimed at expanding real job opportunities for Australians right across this country. Australians are interested in real job opportunities and that is what the policies of this government—the workplace relations policies, the low interest rate policies, the low inflation policies and getting the budget back into balance—are all about. We have seen real jobs now coming through right across regional Australia.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Where? Name one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—By the year to March, according to the latest and most reliable figures, the number of people out of work has decreased in 63 per cent of the regions across Australia. Over the last nine months, of course, the government's policies have led to 183,000 new jobs and the rate of jobs growth has been higher in regional Australia than in metropolitan Australia. The government has also consulted widely with regional Australia about the policies that it believes will generate real jobs. A number of members on this side of the House have been very effective in those consultations.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Name one.BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Dunkley, I recognise, has played a leading role in this.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Name two.BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Longman.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Name three.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter, I have already spoken to.BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Canning and the member for Grey have all been involved in very significant consultations in regional Australia.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—What about the member for Paterson?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hunter.BT4Dr KEMP—As a result of that, the government has strengthened the role of the area consultative committees preparing a new charter for these committees, which will help them develop and implement job creation and employment and training policies in their regions.The budget this year allocated an extra $13 million for the regional assistance program designed to support regional jobs growth and help new businesses get off the ground. The work for the dole scheme has been targeted to regional Australia and it has been expand ing from its initial 10,000 places in the pilot scheme to 100,000 places over the next four years. The number of places in Green Corps this year has expanded. The government has set aside $1.25 million for the Natural Heritage Trust and $1 billion for the Federation Fund. So it is clear that this side of the House is interested in regional Australia. Regional Australia found you out at the last election. That is why you have virtually no seats in regional Australia.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What is the level of youth unemployment?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman.BT4Dr KEMP—This government will continue to increase job opportunities for people right across the great regions of this country.42744274Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Prime Minister, do you recollect me asking you last week this question: is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make recommendations to the government? Do you recollect responding `no' to that question? Prime Minister, why have you misled the House?4274Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to check the question that was asked. The situation is that I had given no such direction. That was the basis of my answer. I have not misled the House.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, I seek leave to move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving that this House censures the Prime Minister for having misled it when he denied that the government members' task force had been instructed to bring forth no recommendations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave given?WI4REITHMr Reith—Let's do it after question time.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—OK; that is fine.42744274Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Is the minister aware of recent comment on bulk-billing levels in the Canberra region and can the minister inform the House of the accuracy of these claims?4274Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Last week, residents of the southern suburbs of Canberra received in the mail a copy of the Namadgi Advocate from the office of Annette Ellis MP, member for Namadgi. It is dated 19 May 1998.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—A good member.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect has been warned; I will not speak to her again.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Page 2 contains a story titled `Howard out to destroy Medicare.' While this is certainly not true—and our track record clearly demonstrates that—I will go on. The first subheading of the article is entitled `Bulk billing—a thing of the past.' Let me quote the second sentence:By cutting family doctors' fees last year, Mr Howard is making it harder for them to bulk bill patients.There are two problems with this. The first is that we did not cut doctors' fees last year, so that is a complete fabrication. The second thing is that Health Insurance Commission data for the Canberra region—if you look at the doctors who practise in the Canberra region—shows that for unreferred attendances, which is what we call GP attendances, for the March quarter 1998, GPs bulk-billed at—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Ring the bell for him, Peter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—He is getting excited, Mr Speaker; Viagra is on the way.For the March quarter 1998, bulk-billing in Canberra was at its highest level in history. If you compare this with the past two years, bulk-billing in March 1996 was 63.2 per cent; in March 1997, 65.7 per cent; and in March 1998, 66.5 per cent. So bulk-billing has gone up three percentage points, or five per cent in total, over the last two years. Unfortunately, the member for Namadgi has been talking to the shadow minister for health and does not believe facts should get in the way of a good story. It just again shows that when it comes to health they will say or do anything.42754275Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling an audience in Nowra on 29 March:The prohibition on guns has made Australia a safer country and I am going to stick to defending it.Prime Minister, are you aware that One Nation policy on firearms includes the repeal of federal legislation prohibiting the importation of firearms such as self-loading rifles, the repeal of the prohibition on the use of military style firearms by civilians, the granting of gun licences for life and the relaxation of gun registration requirements? Prime Minister, why have you permitted a deal that gives preference to a party that would water down your gun laws ahead of the Labor Party, which stood shoulder to shoulder with you on guns?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the government will remain silent.4275Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am rather pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me this question because it gives me the opportunity to say two things. Firstly, it gives me the opportunity to say to those in whatever party they may be in the country that my government and I will be totally opposed with all the constitutional authority at our disposal to any attempt to water down Australia's gun laws. I want to make it clear that we do not support any attempt to water down Australia's gun laws.Having dealt with that part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, let me now deal with another aspect of it, and that goes far deeper to this whole debate about the allocation of preferences in both the Queensland election and the up-coming federal election. As I understand it, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that there is something so distasteful about the policies of the One Nation Party that the One Nation Party should be placed below any other party on the ballot papers of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You are right there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Everyone is saying that.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—That is what the Treasurer is saying.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do think that this is an important issue and if those on the other side want to try to shout me down on the subject, let them try to do so. They can shout me down and make the transmission of this answer very difficult. If they do that, I will simply go outside and give the answer that I intend to give if they will allow me to do it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith, the member for Hotham and the member for Burke!ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the process they are going to do some damage to the institution of parliament. The basis of the Leader of the Opposition's claims is that in some way they have some kind of presumed moral high ground in relation to this.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—They say, `Hear, hear.' It is very interesting because you have got a situation where it is the moral high ground to put somebody last but it is not the moral high ground to beg for their preferences. That is what is happening in the Queensland election.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Rubbish! Rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition laughs, but this is what is happening. You have got Mr Peter Beattie, who is the Leader of the Opposition, saying, `Please consider giving your second preference to the Labor Party.'Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is what Mr Beattie is saying, `Please consider giving your second preference to the Labor Party.'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government!ZD4Mr HOWARD—So apparently the morality of the situation stops—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham!ZD4Mr HOWARD—as soon as it starts to hurt you.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith! The member for Burke will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Everybody in Australia knows damn well that it really does not matter—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Reid!ZD4Mr HOWARD—In electoral terms it doesn't matter about the distribution of Liberal or Labor preferences—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That is not true!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—All that matters is the distribution of the preferences of the One Nation Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—When it comes to the distribution of the preferences of the One Nation Party, the Australian Labor Party is in there begging on its hands and knees. It is in there begging on its hands and knees to have the preferences of the One Nation Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell! The member for Burke will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In other words, I am moral when it comes to preferences that will never be distributed but I am absolutely immoral—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will be silent. The member for Kingsford-Smith! The member for Canberra will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am absolutely amoral when it comes to the distribution of prefer ences of a party that might make a difference. Everyone knows that at the next Queensland election the only party whose preference distribution can really have an impact on the result—DT4CREANMr Crean—Look at your backbench! Just look at their faces!WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—They are not with you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham! The member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—is in fact the preferences of the One Nation Party. This attitude which is being taken by the Australian Labor Party is all of a piece with the attitude that it took in the last federal election.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Namadgi! The Minister for Veterans' Affairs!ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the last federal election the Australian Labor Party put Australians Against Further Immigration ahead of the Liberal Party in the Leader of the Opposition's own seat. In the last federal election, the Australian Labor Party placed parties holding views similar to One Nation's ahead of the Liberal Party in a number of seats. In the Lindsay by-election the Australian Labor Party was prepared to do a preference deal with Australians Against Further Immigration. The Labor Party is engaging in Clayton's morality on the issue of preferences. The Labor Party is begging for the preferences of the One Nation Party in Queensland. Their leader has destroyed its credibility on this issue.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—You're not the leader Fraser was.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest the members of the opposition remain silent. The member for Wills is one of them.42764276Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. I refer to the government's policy providing for representative actions for small business under the Trade Practices Act. Is the minister aware of alternative policies with respect to this? What is the government's response to those policies?4277Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. He is a very strong supporter, a tireless worker, for the small business community in his electorate and I appreciate his interest in the small business policy issues before the parliament.As we look over some of the debates we have already had this year, it is interesting that, whenever there is a choice between the interests of the small business community and the trade union dictates on the Labor Party, on each and every occasion they always come down in favour of the unions. In this parliament we have had votes on whether or not there should be an exemption for small business in respect of unfair dismissal. It has been rejected twice by the Senate. Why has it been rejected? Because, when it comes to a choice between the interests of small business and the unions, the Labor Party always supports the unions.In the recent waterfront dispute, when it has been a choice between the thuggery of the MUA and the interests of some small business, whom do they support? They support the unions as usual. They always support the unions.When it comes to award simplification and trying to remove red tape, whom do they support: small business or the unions? Every time it is the unions. Now with one of the proposals before the House there is this question of representative actions being taken by the ACCC. This is a law which we are proposing which simply says that, where you have a number of small business people who have a legal right to take action, instead of their individually taking the action—and they cannot afford to because of the legal costs—the ACCC should be able to do so. That is a good idea. That is a sensible idea.In fact this idea has been around for years. When the Labor Party was in office, they themselves thought it was a good idea. In fact they gave to the ACCC the capacity to take representative action on behalf of consumers and, when the Reid committee report came down, the Labor Party said it should be adopted lock, stock and barrel.8I4MARTINMr Martin—And what did you do with it?WI4Mr REITH—That was your policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—When we introduced our policy, they were saying, `You ought to go the whole way and adopt each and every recommendation of the Reid committee. You ought to dot the i's and cross the t's.' We announced then that the ACCC would have a representative capacity to take action on behalf of small business.The only reason we did not introduce the legislation there and then back in September was that, when you are changing the Trade Practices Act, you have got to go around and consult with the states. That is the only reason. So we had a process of consultation with the states and, when that was completed, we introduced the legislation.Now what do we find with Labor Party again? They say to themselves, `This may allow the ACCC to take a representative action to defend small business against the MUA.' They have a choice. Are you going to support the small business community, as you said you would, or are you going to support the MUA? So what do they do? They dump the small business community on every possible occasion. This is not creating new rights for small business; this is simply saying, `Where they have existing rights, an ACCC can come in and take a representative action.'So is it retrospectively creating rights for small business? No, it is not. It is simply allowing the rights already existant for small business to be taken up on their behalf by the ACCC. That is a sensible idea. You have publicly supported it. You have done the same thing for consumers and you yourself have been saying, `A small business person ought to have the same protection as a consumer.' If you are fair dinkum about that, why aren't you supporting this measure? The answer is obvious. On every possible occasion—unfair dismissals, getting interest rates down, doing the right thing by small business—whenever you have a choice, the member for Cunningham, who is supposed to be the spokesperson for small business in the Labor Party, is silent because he gets rolled by the trade union thuggery which runs the Labor Party. We are pro-small business. We are proud of it. This is a good measure that you ought to be supporting.Miscellaneous4278427815:08:004278Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for having misled it when he denied the government members task force had been instructed to bring forth no recommendations.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard), when he was Leader of the Opposition, said on 7 May 1992:The Australian people will judge this Prime Minister—he was speaking about his predecessor—on the standard of probity that he is prepared to defend. The supreme test of the courage and probity of the Prime Minister is whether he insists on Ministers observing the basic requirement of a Minister, that is, that they tell the Parliament the truth.The was the position adopted by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition, and I cannot disagree with him. It is the supreme test of the Prime Minister whether he insists on ministers observing the basic requirement of a minister, that is, that they tell the parliament the truth. It is a critical part of the accountability process of this chamber, and it is a particularly critical part in question time.As we in this House know, there are many opportunities for those being asked questions—if they do not want to confront this requirement—to skirt around the question by being evasive, by not answering it directly or simply, as the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) did a few days ago, by simply saying, `I will not answer it.'You enter into a totally different realm when you decide that you will answer a question and you will be emphatic about it. What the Prime Minister did last week was to directly answer a question related to the role of the government task force on taxation, a task force which is providing the government with ammunition in what is a critical argu ment in the Australian community about what the nature of tax reform will be, in which credibility will be on the line—particularly credibility of the government: credibility of their guarantees, credibility of whether or not they upheld past promises—credibility absolutely essential in the Prime Minister.What did the Prime Minister do when asked that question? He did not say, `I will have a think about it' or `I will consult my books; I am not sure what the honourable member is talking about.' He gave an unequivocal, one-word answer: `No'. I will return to that question and the character of it in a moment. First, I want to go to the press release of the Hon. Peter Costello, MP, Treasurer, when the government's task force was established. We can see several interesting things from this press release, which I will not read out in full. The first interesting thing we see is that seated on that particular committee was one Paul Zammit, who happens to be the member for Lowe. In case it is thought that Mr Zammit, in the question that he asked today, got his information second-hand from discussing the matter with another member of parliament, we can set our minds at rest on that matter. Mr Zammit was a member of that committee, tasked to receive a set of community responses. He was invited to reflect on that and the instructions that the Treasurer provided him at that point.In another very interesting part of the press release, it talks about the task of the task force—whether it is a task force to produce recommendations or to siphon forward community opinion and have nothing to say on the matter. A well-known attribute of the Liberal Party is to appear consultative but to go bull-headed with whatever it is you want. You can see that in the behaviour of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) when it comes to sticking balaclavaed would-be troopers onto the waterfront with their dogs, and you can see it in his preparedness to prevaricate in this parliament about what his role was in that. This government is totally slipshod when it comes to its standards of honesty and integrity in dealing with the Australian people.This press release said exactly what that task was in a party used to treating its backbenchers as a bunch of mushrooms to be fed the appropriate and proverbial but not to be seen until the occasion comes for them to be plucked. This is what the Treasurer had to say:The Committee, under the chairmanship of Brian Gibson, will be receiving submissions from Australians from all walks of life, it's a broad based Committee with geographic and different occupational interests and expertise in relation to different industries. And it will be a very big part of the Government's consultation with the community and feeding into the decision making process.In other words, the job of the committee is to pass on the information that comes through from the community in general.The Prime Minister was asked a very specific question by me. Because the Prime Minister got up and said, in his answer to the second question, to me: `I didn't mislead you last week because I issued no instructions,' he was not asked that question. He was asked:Is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make recommendations to the government?Not that it was told by the Prime Minister; simply that it was told by an authoritative member of the government. The authoritative member of the government, as was revealed by Mr Zammit in the House today—but that ought to produce no surprises—happened to be the Treasurer. The Treasurer, as the authoritative member of the government, told them not to make recommendations. The Prime Minister's answer to my direct question in that regard, which did not go to his own personal role in the affair, was: `None'. It was one of those smart alec answers that Prime Ministers give from time to time when they try to prove that they are on top of the issue.We had the three questions which arose from the comments by the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), and those went to the role of the consultative process that this government had established. To show that he was on top of this terrible fellow who, like the member for Lowe, had demeaned him by going out and revealing to the public exactly what sort of Prime Minister they have, what sort of Prime Minister they are dealing with, the Prime Minister was prepared to be dismissive of him and ignore any problems of the endless range and number of defections constantly coming across to this side of the House one after another, each one of them with a bit of free character analysis for the Prime Minister as they come across.What he did to belittle the member for Dickson at that point of time was just to dismiss my question. My question ran straight off the member for Dickson's press release and dealt with every single point that he had of complaint about the government. There was not in the explanation any kind word or whatever for his departing comrade—no, no, no; out the back door: `I am a Prime Minister of toughness, I am a Prime Minister who answers things decisively, I am a Prime Minister who knows exactly what I am during at all points of time. I am a Prime Minister who knows, above all, of the internal procedures of my government. I am on top of those internal procedures. Not a sparrow falls to the ground but that I do not notice it,' according to the Prime Minister.What the Prime Minister simply did to this House—and this is part of the censure motion—is lie to it. The Prime Minister was in a position to know the truth of that matter and chose not to reveal that truth. He chose to let abroad in the community an impression that when people went forward to those government members they were actually engaged in a meaningful process of consultation and that somebody on that committee, the people to whom they were talking, would pass judgment on their views and recommendations would be made. It is a reasonable supposition, whatever the sleight of hand words from the Treasurer. The sleight of hand words of the Treasurer actually pointed to the real situation. It is a reasonable thing for them to conclude that, that when they talk to this government, this government is actually talking to them listening to them about tax reform. It is a reasonable thing to conclude, but an absolutely erroneous thing for the people to conclude, that this government is actually seriously giving consideration to anything that they have to say to it as far as tax reform is considered.Then what happened is that the Prime Minister came into this place and, in denying that, he had to handle that question again today. I thought the member for Lowe, who is not in the chamber, when he got up to take a point of order on the Prime Minister was going to ask the question: what colour is red? When he got that direct question from the witness, when the witness actually found himself for a brief moment as the prosecutor and was able to get up and put a direct question of something within his knowledge, the Prime Minister prevaricated, slipped and slid and hoped that we would not notice what it was that he had said. What it was that he had said, of course, was a direct denial of Mr Zammit's question. It is worth regaling the House again with that question from Mr Zammit. He said:My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows a question to him in this House last week when he was asked if it was true that the government members' tax consultative task force on taxation were told to not make recommendations to the government, to which you replied, and I quote, `No, no, no.' Prime Minister, are you aware that this task force was directed by the Treasurer at its inaugural meeting to make no recommendations to the government? Prime Minister, as I was an inaugural member of the task force until my resignation from the Liberal Party, will you give me and my electorate of Lowe an assurance that members of parliament who serve on the task force will not be blamed by you for any shortcomings in the tax package you intend to present to the Australian people?Not a bad question; not a bad question in its way. What the member wanted to do was not find his own political reputation tarnished with the sort of chicanery which has underpinned this particular so-called tax reform process.Day after day in this chamber we on this side of the House have to put up with this moral unction from the Prime Minister in which he stands up in this place and clothes himself in the cloth of reform. We know exactly where this tax reform proposal came from. It came from a moment of weakness after the last budget that was brought down in the name of the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister, to defend himself and the reputation of his government—nothing to do with tax reform; to defend himself and the reputation of his government—came out and said, `I place tax reform on the agenda.' It was two days into an awful press baking for what was very much a non-event budget produced by his Treasurer, causing the Prime Minister to put back on the table a proposition which the Treasurer had described only months before as snake oil. What was he calling it snake oil for? It is snake oil when it said it encouraged exporters, snake oil when it said it encouraged small business, snake oil when it suggested it encouraged savings. Snake oil, said the Treasurer, to all those propositions. But the Treasurer was not regarded as a person sufficient to be able to defend his budget. The Prime Minister went out there and said, `I want to put tax reform on the table.'Then, because he liked the theme, he liked the coverage, he went out and said, `I invite you all on a great tax adventure. I invite the Australian people on a tax adventure.' That was the last time the Prime Minister invited the people to a tax adventure, because from that point on everything has been sleight of hand and clandestine. A proposal which was supposed to be out last December and give all of the Australian people an opportunity to debate it is not yet before us. It was a proposition in which he was supposed to provide the community with an opportunity to have a real say—that is, after all, what a tax adventure usually is.The fig leaf that he put over the adventure was his taxation task force. But the taxation task force was a snow job, and every member of the taxation task force knows that it was a snow job. Every member of the taxation task force knows that it was there to field the flak from the community that would come with the goods and services tax. It had no serious role. Why did it have no serious role? Because the Treasurer, wanting to get back an agenda that had got absolutely out of control, set it up on the basis that it would put nothing to government. It would merely be a post box and a clearing house. That is all that that committee would be: the cannon fodder of the Liberal Party's tax debate. That is what the members were supposed to be. Their committee was the post box and they were the cannon fodder.The Prime Minister asks the Australian people to accept his credibility. He starts with a major disadvantage in this entire debate. He is the bloke who went out and said, `Never ever.' He is the fellow who said that he would never ever put this issue back on the table again as far as his government would be concerned. Not, `This applies for next term, and then we will think about it after that', which is what he said, to give him his due, in regard to the privatisation of Telstra—that he would put it back on the agenda again afterwards. Not that sort of qualified position but a `never ever', which on any definition, not least the Oxford Dictionary definition, means `never ever', a commonsense interpretation. Most people out there know what `never ever' means. It is only the Prime Minister's sleight of hand that would cause any degree of confusion about what `never ever' meant.So they voted for him with a degree of comfort. All those small businesses who had been invited to be tax agents back in 1993 could vote for him with comfort. All those service companies driving the jobs growth in this community could vote for the government in comfort. All those pensioners out there, and in particular those self-funded retirees, all those folk who had saved for their retirement, could guarantee that their savings would not be devalued by 10 per cent, 15 per cent or whatever. They could all vote for the Prime Minister in comfort. They could join the Prime Minister's other magical mystery tour, his `relaxed and comfortable' magical mystery tour, which they, unfortunately for them, decided they would depart upon.The government, of course, would never dare run with the `relaxed and comfortable' slogan again. I am surprised it had the dead set cheek to run with the security proposition. Apart from the plagiarism involved in that exercise, given that we have been talking about it for the last year or two, what about the comparison with what the `relaxed and comfortable' was supposed to produce?We have a Prime Minister on whose tattered credibility is going to depend community consideration of a whole range of other matters. This Prime Minister, who has lied to the House in this instance, now has to be believed by the Australian people when he says, `The GST rate will never ever rise.' The second thing that he has to be believed on is that `the compensation package will stay in place and be meaningful'. There has to be credibility as far as that is concerned. The third thing that there will need to be credibility on is that `those goods excluded from the goods and services tax will stay out permanently'. Those are three very big issues of credibility for this government. On that level of credibility, the credibility that might attach to them, rests the government's entire position in this debate.So will the deliverer of these statements be a person whom you can trust? Will it be the person who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had to say that ministers must never mislead the House and also gave us a definition of `truth'. He has given us a new definition of `never ever', but this was recently. This was his definition of truth:We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.Most of us in this parliament, particularly those who have been here for a lengthy period of time, including you, Mr Speaker, are cautious with our words. Most of us know that we are sinners awaiting judgment. Most of us know that we have from time to time done things in our lives that we are not proud of. Most of us have a smidgin of humility in that regard. Not the Prime Minister.This is the man who is never wrong. This is the man who will call black white in denial to anybody who comes at him with an accusation that something he has said in the past he has offended against. This is a man who says that in his own personal life he stands for the absolute presentation of consistency throughout it. And this is the bloke who lied to the parliament last week. This is the fellow who was asked a direct question—and there was absolutely no equivocation on it—who stood up to me in today's question time and, when I said, `Didn't you mislead the House?' said, `No, I didn't because I didn't instruct him.' That wasn't the question that he was asked. This is a classic case of separating the inseparable, a classic case of standing aside, a classic case of not saying that `truth is absolute, truth is supreme and truth is never disposable in national political life'.Prime Minister, you are worthy of the censure of this chamber, I am afraid to say. You deserve it. You deserve it because you have done the classic thing that a minister must never do. It is not that a minister cannot get out of a question. It is not that a minister can fail to answer a question. Ministers have been doing that since time immemorial. But ministers must not tell an untruth. You have said that yourself, and you stand condemned out of your own mouth. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?DT4CREANMr Crean—I second the motion, and reserve the right to speak.15:28:004282Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The censure of anybody is the most serious parliamentary sanction that is available. In accordance with the practice of the House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was afforded a latitude with language that I accept without any demur because of the character of the motion. The allegation made against me by the Leader of the Opposition is that I lied. That was the allegation, pure and simple, no qualification, and that is the issue that is at stake here—whether or not I lied.K26LATHAMMr Latham—You look embarrassed about it.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—No. I intend to treat it seriously because, like the Leader of the Opposition, I do have some considerable regard for this place and I do have some considerable regard for probity in public life. A lie, Mr Speaker, in my understanding, is when you tell a deliberate untruth. It involves telling a deliberate untruth. In other words, knowing that what you are saying is wrong, you nonetheless go ahead and say it.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Burke.10000Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Let me assert to the House that I gave no such instruction as asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition, nor was I aware that anybody else in the government had given it. In those circumstances to suggest that I have lied to the parliament is a lie itself, and I totally reject it.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why didn't you correct the record?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—That is really about all that I could possibly be expected to say on this issue.RH4KERRMr Kerr—So it is Costello's fault?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will remain silent.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Let me say it again, and say it very slowly: I was asked a question. I was, in fact, asked three questions by the Leader of the Opposition. The first question asked:. . . is it a fact, as claimed by your latest departing member of your backbench, the member for Dickson, your GST will be presented to your party room as yet another fait accompli?I answered no to that question. The second question asked:Is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make recommendations to the government?When I was asked that question, knowing that I had given no such instruction, and not being aware of any such instruction having been given by anybody else, I said no. That remains the situation. Finally, the third question asked:Is this not misleading behaviour of a piece with your refusal to answer questions in this House on whether your GST will apply to health . . .And I answered no to that. I would remind the parliament that, when the press release was put out by me establishing this committee, the consultative role of this committee was emphasised in that press release. I believe that committee has carried out a very significant job for the government. As I said in answer to the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) when he asked me the question, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and I will have the opportunity of dealing with this issue this afternoon when we meet the members of the committee.While I am on my feet, and given that the substance of the allegation made against me by the Leader of the Opposition can be so completely dismissed in less than five minutes, let me take the opportunity in some of the remaining minutes that are available to me in this censure motion debate to traverse some of the confected morality which the Leader of the Opposition has taken upon himself over the last few moments. This is the man who purported a few moments ago to excoriate me for allegedly taking an absolute standard in relation to matters of behaviour. I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that no person with an element of commonsense in life would ever take an absolute standard in relation to his or her own personal behaviour. I have never done that, nor has anybody in my party and nor should any sensible person in the opposition.Seeing that credibility and comparative truth have been put on the table, seeing that the word and the pledge of one man against another man has been put on the table, it is only right and proper that I have the opportunity to deal with the track record of the Leader of the Opposition. It is only right and proper that I have the opportunity of reminding the Australian people, as I have done on many occasions, that this was the man who told the Australian people, knowing it to be wrong—and that is the difference, because that was a lie because he knew it was wrong—that the budget was in surplus before the last election.He did not seek to qualify those words. He did not seek to clothe them with some kind of excuse or some kind of exculpation. What the Leader of the Opposition did, knowing it to be wrong—in other words, according to his own definition, even worse than a lie, because what he is trying to fit me with is the allegation of a lie in relation to something that I did not, when I uttered those words, know for a moment to be untrue and therefore was not a lie—was to say to the Australian people, to solemnly look down the barrel of the camera, knowing that the budget was in severe deficit, to put his hand on his heart and say, `No, the budget is in surplus.' That is what the Leader of the Opposition did, and that is what the Prime Minister whom he so loyally served at the time also did.The dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition, the willingness of the Leader of the Opposition to tell lies, was not limited to his behaviour in the lead-up to the 1996 election. It was also evident in the lead-up to the 1993 election. He knew that the propositions being taken to the 1993 election by the Australian Labor Party were economically unsustainable. He knew that the propositions being taken to the election by the Australian Labor Party could not be afforded if the promises of the Australian Labor Party were to be kept.On that occasion he cooperated with his colleagues. He joined his colleagues in a dishonest attack on a goods and services tax that he himself had once supported in the middle of the 1980s. Not only did he join in that dishonest attack; after the election, without so much as a snippet of embarrassment, he joined in the repudiation of election commitments that had been made. Yet he now has the political indecency to come into this parliament and to pretend to the Australian people that he can lecture me on honesty, that he can lecture me on probity and that he can lecture me on proper parliamentary behaviour.The Australian public will have an opportunity in the months ahead to make a judgment about the respective policies of the two sides of politics in Australia at the present time. I believe that as that campaign continues the Australian people will see not only the Leader of the Opposition's empty policy positions but also his confected morality, particularly in relation to the issue of the preferences of the One Nation Party, where he says that it is indecent not to put the One Nation Party last but it is perfectly decent to beg them to give you preferences. Apparently it is immoral not to put them last but it is perfectly moral to crawl into office with their preference votes. That is the morality that is being adopted by the Leader of the Opposition at the present time.The allegation that was made against me was that I told a lie. I refute that; I reject that. I repeat again: I was asked a question. The basis of my answer was that I had not given any such instruction. I was not aware that anybody else had given any such instruction. It was therefore entirely honourable, entirely proper, entirely consistent with parliamentary practice for me to give the answer that I gave. I think it was the right answer to have given. I reject the censure motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition.15:37:004284Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—What a pathetic defence of a Prime Minister (Mr Howard) who said, `Truth is paramount,' a Prime Minister who said he was going to lift the standards, a Prime Minister whose score of credibility is so diminished that every time he speaks, every time he opens his mouth, no-one can believe him. The Prime Minister leaves this chamber, scurrying out, having been given 15 minutes to defend himself and not able to go beyond 10 minutes. He is a person who, when he makes a commitment, no longer can be believed. He is a person who had the temerity to accuse the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) of covering up the last budget deficit. But Mr Howard was the Treasurer back in 1983 who actually had a document from the Treasury which he sat upon. He will not make that linkage, a linkage where he had a document that he sat upon and refused to divulge that he had put the government, and us coming to government, in deficit to the tune of $23 billion in today's dollars—and he wants to make comparisons about the so-called deficit on this occasion.This is a Prime Minister who, every time he has got his hand on his heart these days, has got the shoulder twitching and the eyes flickering. Did anyone recall seeing him on the John Laws program when he was trying to get out of the `never, ever' escapade? When John Laws said to him, `But you've never said you were going to break that promise,' he said, `Well, I've just said it now, John.' This was the first revelation of it. He thought he could keep going, like he has tried to do in this parliament today, continuing to deny that he either said it or that someone said it on his behalf. He is the slipperiest of all characters we have ever come across in this chamber, make no mistake of it.We now have a `Howard dictionary'—a dictionary that effectively has to be rewritten because of the Prime Minister's statements. We have the dictionary of `never, ever'. `Never, ever' no longer means `forever' and `not ever'; it means `until the next election'. That is what the Prime Minister says `never, ever' means. Remember when he made the commitment to visit Newcastle `soon' when they had closed the Newcastle steel works? `Soon' means `Not before I go to Lords to see the cricket test.' And he still has not been to Newcastle. He has also redefined the word `immediate'. Of the car tariff plan, on the last occasion, 12 months ago, he said, `We will be looking for the parliament to give it immediate passage.' The government still has not introduced the legislation into this place. When announcing the great adventure on tax reform, he is a person who said that the details would be announced `soon'; 12 months later, again, we are still no further enlightened by it.This is a Prime Minister who cannot be believed when he makes these commitments because he is a person who does not follow through. When he is caught out, what is his defence? His defence is, `I did not know; it was not me.'Let us just go to the circumstances that have led to this censure today. He was asked today by the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) whether it was true that the government members consultative task force on taxation reform were told to not make recommendations to the government—not whether the Prime Minister told them but whether the committee was told. That was the question the Prime Minister was asked on 26 May, last week. On that occasion, when that question was asked of him, he said, `No.' On 26 May, the question was asked:Is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make changes to the government?The Prime Minister said, `No'—no qualification, not `I haven't said it.' No qualification; an emphatic no. He was asked, `Was the government's task force told by someone in authority in the government not to make recommendations?' and he said emphatically, `No.'We have to go back to 26 May because that was the day when another member of the John Howard government left because they could not agree on policies. The member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) left on that day. He held a press conference before question time in parliament; he held it before 2 o'clock. I am sure that every member sitting opposite, including the Prime Minister and/or his minders, would have been glued to the set watching what was being said, because they knew that anything that came from it was fertile ground for us in question time. On that day, at the press conference, when asked on the question of tax, `Who do you blame for being clandestine about tax, Costello or Howard?' this is what Mr Tony Smith said:I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying that having become aware that the committee that was set up on tax reform, on the task force, has not even been allowed to make recommendations—I mean, what do you say about that sort of process? Doesn't it illustrate the point I'm making?He was there before question time, saying that the committee was not allowed to make recommendations. It is something the Prime Minister should have been aware of, it is a question he should have anticipated coming. If he did, all the worse his charge, because he deliberately got up in this House and lied. He got up in this chamber and said, `No, it is not true that they were told they could not make recommendations,' when not only is it the member for Dickson saying that, but if we go back a week to the Four Corners program, Senator Brian Gibson, the chair of this committee—and you would think whether the member for Dickson or the member for Lowe had some ear to the Prime Minister might have been doubtful, but Senator Gibson, who is one of the Prime Minister's closer confidantes, would—said on the Four Corners program on 18 May, `Our task is not to make recommendations.' That is the chairman of the committee speaking. He would not have been making that statement out front unless he was under instructions to make it, unless he had been told by the people who set this operation up that he was not supposed to do it.What we have is the Prime Minister knowingly allowing the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to go along to this committee and mug them, telling them that they cannot make recommendations, and then the Prime Minister maintains his purity, hand on heart in this chamber, and when he is asked the question, `Have you told that committee it can't make recommendations?' he says no. He was given the opportunity today on three occasions. He was first of all asked the question by the member for Lowe. He was asked the question, not in terms of whether he told them, but whether the committee was told. He avoided the question, if you look at the Hansard extract. He tried to laugh it off, as if this was some sort of inconsequential issue, as if it did not matter. Lying to the parliament does not matter to the Prime Minister any more because he has already lied to the public on a number of occasions and is now lying to the parliament; but he chooses to laugh it off. Having failed to answer the member for Lowe, he was then asked a second question. He was asked it by the Leader of the Opposition in a similar form:Prime Minister . . . you denied that the government had instructed the government's backbench tax committee to produce no recommendations. Having failed to answer the question from the member for Lowe, will you now explain how you have not misled the House?The Prime Minister said:I will have a look at what I said last week.He was then given the opportunity, because we sought to table the extract from Hansard , but no, the government would not take that. We then asked a number of other questions so that the Prime Minister could check the facts. What did he come back with in relation to the third question that was asked of him on the same point? He said:Mr Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to check the question that was asked. The situation is that I had given no such direction. That was the basis of my answer.It was not the basis of his answer. Not only has he shafted his Treasurer, knowing full well what the Treasurer has told them, no doubt in consultation with his Prime Minister, but he has tried to change what the question was on 26 May last and on three occasions in this parliament.You may say that this is a novel way out. It is no novel way out, this is the Prime Minister saying, `No, it wasn't me; not me, I know nothing.' Have you heard that before—`I know nothing'? He said it in relation to Sharp, he said it in relation to McGauran, he said it in relation to the dismissal of Grahame Morris and he said it in relation to Max Moore-Wilton, when he was supposed to be checking all the other conflicts of interest. He said it in relation to DDB Needham, he said it in relation to Prosser and he said it in relation to Parer.He is a serial offender, this guy. This is a person who makes promises that he never intends to keep. When he is caught out he pretends he never made the promise, but when he is told what the promise was and shown the words he says, `I didn't mean that,' or, `I personally didn't say it.' This is the redefinitionist Prime Minister, the Prime Minister who said he would never ever introduce a tax that now he is saying he never ever will increase. How can anyone believe him? Today is just another example of what this Prime Minister will do to deceive the Australian public and to cover his hide, and that is why we have got the censure today.This is not one isolated incident. This is a serial offender we have in the Prime Minister. This is a person who will lie at every opportunity. This is a person who will deceive the Australian public. This is a person who will mislead this House if he thinks he can get away with it. As far as we are concerned as an opposition, we will not let him get away with it. He is required to be accountable to this chamber and to the people who elected him. He is not accountable if what he is doing is lying to them in the worst possible ways. Let me say this: as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, there is no more important issue on his agenda than tax. He is the one who has asked the electorate to come on this great adventure with him. He set up the backbench committee to receive recommendations from his fellow adventurers. He knew precisely what he was seeking to control and manage.I am pleased to see the Prime Minister back in the chamber because, Prime Minister, we have been alleging against you that you have consistently deceived and lied to the Australian public, that you have misled the Australian parliament and that, whenever you get into trouble, you try to minimise the circumstances around you. Your intention is to shaft everyone else. Previously, you have axed seven ministers from your front bench because they became embarrassments and indefensible. We will still wait and see how long you have to hang on to your good flatmate, Senator Parer. We will still see how long you are prepared to hang on to him.But always through those exercises you have said, `It had nothing to do with me, it was their fault, they must go.' Today you have shafted the Treasurer because he went and told that committee not to make any recommendations. He went, we assert, with your knowledge. You knew about it because you were involved in this exercise to hoodwink the Australian public, but you think you can come into this chamber and tell us that they were not directed to come up with no recommendations when you knew full well they were. (Time expired)15:52:004286Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—One has to be amused by the performance of the person who just stood opposite at the dispatch box, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean). Never before would we have seen a censure or purported censure so lacking in all conviction. There was no conviction in that speech whatsoever. There was no support from the backbench. Never before would we have seen a censure so lacking in substance. No substantive issue whatsoever was raised by the member for Hotham. Never before would we have seen a censure with no moment. Was there any moment in the House that this was somehow significant, that this was a serious charge being mounted against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)? Never before would we have seen a censure with no significance and on no substantive policy issue whatsoever.The member for Hotham is so devoid of policy that he trafficked material which had been downloaded from the DAS computer to try to look into travel allowances and travel claims. Don't tell me he can't take it! He got on the Channel 9 program and, when he was asked whether or not he had downloaded from the DAS computer, he made out that he had not. He was trafficking around. I call him the Arthur Daley of the federal parliament.Then he set up a little unit in his office to go out and look through Senator Parer's tax affairs. Do you think this man is interested in policy? Is he interested in budgets? Is he interested in tax? Is he interested in policy? Is he interested in debt? Is he interested in inflation? No. He has got a little unit in his office that runs around after the tax affairs of Senator Parer—again, a matter of great moment!Then, of course, there was the Menzies Research Centre. Remember the Menzies Research Centre? He fed it out to the Bulletin. Another attempt to blackguard the reputation of the Prime Minister. Why? Why does the Labor Party invest so much time in trying to blackguard the reputation of the Prime Minister? It is not only because they have no policy but also because they know that the integrity and the honesty of the Prime Minister stand absolutely unchallenged. That is why they invest so much time in trying to blackguard the Prime Minister. They know that compared with them he stands unchallenged in the credibility and honesty stakes.Mr Melham interjecting—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Even by way of interjection from the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. `You are supposed to be different,' he said—and so we are. The absolute outrage from the Labor Party when it appears that the government is different and does take a higher position!So we have this concerted attempt by the little dirty tricks department that runs around in the ex-ACTU officer's office. It runs after Parer, runs after the Menzies Research Centre and gets up on these lacking-conviction censures—over what? Over a great policy issue? Does a great policy issue turn on any of this? No. Does any great policy issue that the public will be engaged in turn on this? No. This is allegedly a matter of great moment as the Howard government consultative task force interplays—DT4CREANMr Crean—Look at the press tomorrow.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—That was a very interesting interjection. He said, `Look at the papers tomorrow.' Is that what you said?DT4CREANMr Crean—No, I said, `Look at the press tomorrow.'CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—`Look at the press tomorrow,' he said. I hope the journalists heard that interjection: `Look at the press tomorrow.' It is an age-old tactic, Mr Speaker: move a censure, get up and throw around the words `lie' and `deceit' under public interest immunity and try to get them into the press tomorrow. That is as far as you think. `Look at the press tomorrow,' he said. When he said, `Look at the press tomorrow,' he was saying that this is all a media stunt to get the headline into the press tomorrow. Do you know what the press ought to report tomorrow? `Another stunt—Crean. Another blackguard—Crean. More dealing in deceit and lies from Crean.'The Prime Minister got up here in answer to a question on Tuesday last week. The question was:Is it true that your own government members' task force on taxation, which you have touted as a great community consultative vehicle on your tax changes, was told not to make recommendations to the government?When he answered that question he answered it in utmost truthfulness—to the best of his knowledge and in utmost truthfulness, as he has said. There was no attempt whatsoever to mislead this House—in fact, the misleading of the House came in the cleverly phrased question. It was basically an attempt to say that the Prime Minister was not interested in his consultative task force recommendations. I can tell you that not only is the Prime Minister interested in their recommendation but he has a meeting with them at 5 o'clock this afternoon to receive their report.DT4CREANMr Crean—And he knew of the instructions. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has made his contribution.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What do you think is going to be in their report? A big blank page? It is going to be a report which is full of advice for the government as a result—DT4CREANMr Crean—Recommendations?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What is a recommendation?DT4CREANMr Crean—Did you tell them not to make any?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What if the task force says—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will speak through the chair.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—`Your tax reform package should include the following issues,' or, `We have heard from the following people'?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Do you call that a recommendation? Do you? Do you call that a recommendation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond through the chair.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What a goose! What a pathetic argument. We are now having this semantic argument about the difference between a report and a recommendation, are we? We have got this huge report from the taxation task force consultative committee which is coming to the Prime Minister full of advice—99 per cent of it is, I am sure, correct, but there will no doubt be some items that the government does not agree with—and we are down here in the parliament having a semantic debate about what constitutes a recommendation.It has always been absolutely clear what the purpose of the tax consultative task force is. The Prime Minister announced the formation of the government's tax policies on 13 August 1997, and the government's plan to reform and modernise the Australian taxation system. He said it would be a two-stage process. He said:Progress in this area will be undertaken by the Taxation TaskForce, headed by the Treasurer, with representatives of my department, the Australian Taxation Office, the Treasurer's office and the Cabinet Policy Unit.He then went down and he laid out five principles as to what the government would be guided by in relation to tax reform:a. There should be no increase in the overall tax burden;b. Any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax with special regard for the taxation treatment of families;c. Consideration should be given to a broad based,indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing taxes;d. There should be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration; ande. Reform of Commonwealth/State financial relations must be addressed.He then set up a second group, which he said would enable a heightened process of consultation with interest groups. He said:The government will be assisted in this respect by a special task force of government members.That was what was announced on 13 August 1997. On 4 September, the Prime Minister then announced the government members task force on taxation. He announced all of those that were due to be part of it. He said this:The task force—completely consistent with that—has been established to assist in the process of public consultation. The task force will take public submissions . . . public submissions should bear in the mind the government's view.DT4CREANMr Crean—Did you tell them not to make recommendations?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has made his contribution and will remain silent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—The task force will take public submissions and report to the government, as was said on 4 September 1997. Unless there was any doubt on this, I then issued a press release on 23 October 1997. And what did I say?DT4CREANMr Crean—`Don't make recommendations'. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Did I? Did I say that?DT4CREANMr Crean—Do you deny it?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Did I say, `Don't make recommendations'? Did I?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for HothamCT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Another false claim! Another false claim.DT4CREANMr Crean—Deny it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will leave the House for one hour under standing order 304A.The honourable member for Hotham thereupon withdrew from the chamber.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—We are not much impressed by the bullyboy tactics of ex-ACTU presidents in this parliament. When I released a press release on 23 October 1997, again it was entirely clear what the tax consultative task force was to do. The government's tax consultative task force has commenced liaison with the community; the task force has been established to assist in the process of consultation; the task force will be taking submissions; the task force will take submissions on ways to achieve a fair and better modern taxation system; those making submissions should bear in mind the government's view that—and five principles were set out. So here we have a policy group, as announced by the Prime Minister, which is working on tax reform options; we have a consultative group which is consulting with the public, and the consultative group is reporting back to the government at 5 o'clock this afternoon on what the public has submitted it wants in a taxation package.What does the opposition say? `Oh,' the opposition says, `big point here.' When this task force reports—with a report which is about as thick as the two fingers of the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)—the question is whether that advice, whether that consultation, whether that report can be also characterised as recommendations. Of course there is going to be advice in that report. I have not been privileged enough to see it as yet, but it was always entirely clear, as the Prime Minister said, that this group was going to have a free hand to consult, that this group was going to have a free hand to report—that was the whole essence of this group—and that it was going to work in tandem with the task force group.The opposition gets up here in this confected appearance to try to make something out of the internal processes of the coalition and how it works. What turns on it? In what way will this affect the life of any Australian? In what way will this see that Australians who are paying mortgages on their homes will have a situation which is changing? In what way will it change the way in which the taxation system operates? In what way will it determine the outcome of tax reform in this country? This is one of the most arcane, inconsequential, semantic disputes that you could possibly muscle up, and it has been muscled up because this is an opposition which is failing to engage in any policy discussion whatsoever.The Prime Minister's integrity in this matter stands absolutely unchallenged. And we will repudiate any attempt by the blackguarding of the Australian Labor Party to go around and try to put aspersions on him. If you want to see the kinds of aspersions that actually affect people, let us think about what people are told before elections on the state of the Commonwealth budget. This is something that can really affect people. What were people given to understand in February 1996 when the then Minister for Finance went out and said that the budget was in balance? That had the capacity to affect people. It had the capacity to affect people in terms of the government's fiscal position. It had the capacity to affect people in terms of their vote. It had the capacity to affect them in relation to their mortgage interest rates. What do you say about a finance minister who, on the eve of federal election, goes out and says that the budget is in balance?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—He's a cheat! He's a liar!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What do you really say about person like that?Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—What motivation could you have on the eve of an election to make that statement when the budget was then $10,000 million in the red? Let us go to motive here. And let us ask: who had the motives?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And the forged letters.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—And the forged letters—quite right—on the eve of the 1996 election which were put out by the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). I have had the decency not to refer to that in this parliament until you raised it. What were the motivations on the eve of the 1996 election?Let me ask you about other motivations in relation to policies on the eve of an election. What motivation would you have before an election to legislate income tax cuts and take them away afterwards? What motivation would you have?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—To deceive.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—To deceive. Did anything turn on that? Yes. What turned on that was millions of Australians' pay packets. He actually put into legislation an income tax cut and then, after the election, took it away. Was that an arcane dispute about what constitutes a recommendation or a report in a backbench consultation process before an election? No, that wasn't. That was an assurance which was put to millions of Australians—that, on the re-election of a Labor government in 1993, they would get a reduction in their personal income tax. Did they ever get it? No. That was not l-a-w, that was a l-i-e. Do you know what happened? It worked. It got the Labor Party back in the 1993 election. In the 1993 election, Labor stole an election on deceit. Labor tried to do it again in 1996, and Labor was caught. So don't give me any of this smokescreen about the Prime Minister's integrity. Don't give me any of this smokescreen about Labor being holier than thou. Don't give us any of this smokescreen about how the Labor Party is interested in standards. The Labor Party is not interested in standards. The Labor Party can't hold a wick to the honesty of the Prime Minister. The Labor Party can't put a torch to it. This censure should be utterly defeated and repudiated. And we do it! Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:12:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.87Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. 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.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. * Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Jones, B. O. Moore, J. C.Lawrence, C. M. Gallus, C. A.Price, L. R. Hawker, D. P. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Personal Explanations429116:16:004291Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—During question time the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) alleged a number of atrocities on my part about expenditure on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The basis on which I made my public comments was a report issued by the Minister for Health and Family Services entitled Australia's Health 1996 , which contains the following statement:Pharmaceutical expenditure was influenced by the introduction of a copayment for pensioners, which created some price consciousness among the patients and reduced demand at least in the two years after its introduction. However, copayments do not affect the trends in the underlying demand—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dobell is now going way outside a personal explanation.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He is clearly outside the guidelines.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is now quite outside the procedures. He will show where he has been personally misrepresented and no more.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I will just finish with the second half—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, you cannot refer to the statement. The member for Dobell cannot read a statement in that way. You show where you have been personally misrepresented and no more.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I will finish by making it clear that the report released by the minister makes it clear that there was a temporary reduction in the increase in demand and it then resumed as long-term trend.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are now debating the subject matter.16:17:004291Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—At question time the Treasurer (Mr Costello) quoted from a press release that I issued as Treasurer on 11 February 1996 and claimed that this showed that Labor would have done nothing to change the taxation of trusts. This press release was headed `High wealth individuals—Taxation of trusts'. The point of this press release was threefold: to announce the discovery of major tax avoidance—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He has to say where he has been misrepresented.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—Just give me two seconds, I will get there.WI4REITHMr Reith—You are just debating the point.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—I am not debating the point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand will show where he has been misrepresented. I think the member for Gellibrand is in order at the moment.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—As I have said, the Treasurer claimed that quoting this press release showed that Labor would have done nothing to change the taxation of trusts. What the press statement did was to announce the government's intention to change the taxation of trusts. It said—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You want to show where you have been personally misrepresented.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—This is my press release that is being quoted. It has been misquoted.WI4REITHMr Reith—He is not entitled to debate this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has made a point and I accept that you do need to show exactly where you have been misrepresented.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—What has been read from the press statement is not a true representation of what this press statement was designed to show. The point of the press statement, totally contrary to what the Treasurer said, was to announce that the government was going to legislate to change the taxation of trusts. I said in this that I had written to the secretary to the Treasury and the Commissioner of Taxation asking them to develop appropriate legislation.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. This member clearly does not appreciate the purpose of the standing orders in respect of misrepresentations. He is not entitled to debate the intention of the government back in February 1996.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hear the Leader of the House, but I believe at the moment that the member for Gellibrand is in order.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—I think I have made my point.16:19:004292Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—In this morning's Newcastle Herald the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) criticised those delegates to the New South Wales ALP country conference for not in turn criticising—WI4REITHMr Reith—Where have you been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Give me a chance. You cannot get it out in two words.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will show where he has been misrepresented. He should talk to me and not to the Leader of the House.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I apologise, Mr Speaker. He should not be so rude. In the article the member for Paterson criticised members and delegates to the New South Wales country conference for not in turn criticising—Mr Reith interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—How do I explain the misrepresentation in three words?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unless you have been personally misrepresented there is no procedure available.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am one of the delegates.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Hunter has been criticised. Well, so what? That is not a question of him being misrepresented. He would be criticised every day in his electorate, but that hardly justifies him seeking to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter, unless he has been personally misrepresented, cannot claim to make a personal explanation where he is only one of a broad category of people. They say all parliamentarians are at the bottom of the pop star list. We all can complain. Frankly, that is not the purpose of personal explanations. You need to show personally where you have been misrepresented.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am a delegate representing the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and by implication he has criticised me. The fact is that there are some proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court between EnergyAustralia and National Power and to do so would be in contempt of court. The member for Paterson knows—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hunter has not the call. You cannot make a personal explanation on a general basis.429310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:42931365A5 JK6 HH4Brown Bob MP; McClelland Robert MP; Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition of the undersigned shows that: the Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable; fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs; the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs; the Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 46 citizens)Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 75 citizens)Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 15 citizens)429311KL6Andren Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully bring to your attention their concern about the privatisation of the NSW Adult Migrant English Service which they believe will be to the detriment of refugees and migrants who have used this service of acknowledged high quality for 50 years.Your petitioners therefore request that the House urgently review the decision with a view to ensuring that the Service is retained and that the combine experience of the staff and the resources continue to be available to serve the needs of refugees and migrants in New South Wales.Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren(from 11 citizens)4293627ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—particularly the financial impact these changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 627 citizens)4293436ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland calls to the attention of the House the Howard Government's proposed changes to nursing homes and aged care, which includes charging an entry fee or bond for entry into nursing homes. The Government's proposals are unfair and will discriminate against the most vulnerable, frail and sick members of our community.We request the House to call on the Howard Government to abandon their plans and to immediately restore full funding for capital assistance to nursing homes.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 436 citizens)429369JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Sydney calls to the attention of the House that the proposal to allow nursing homes to charge an entry free or bond discriminates against the most vulnerable frail and sick members of our community.Your petitioners therefore request that the House forthwith abandon such proposals to permit the introduction of nursing home entry fees and to immediately restore full funding for capital assistance to nursing homes.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 69 citizens)4294128ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the Howard Government's unfair and hurtful changes affecting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and purchase of pharmaceutical products. These changes include:increasing the co-payment for PSB Health Card holders from $2.70 to $3.20;increasing the PBS co-payment for Australian families from $17.40 to $20.00;the introduction of a new `drugs tax' through the Therapeutic Group Premium plan, which will force up to 2,000,000 Australians to pay more for the latest, safest and most effective medication in key areas—such as treatment for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, ulcers and depression;the removal in recent years of many drugs and medications altogether from the PBS list.Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to reverse their changes to pharmaceuticals and the PBS, which will particularly hurt low income, elderly and sick members of our community.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 128 citizens)4294109ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the means by which Patrick Stevedores dismissed their workforce overnight under the Federal Workplace Relations Act.Your petitioners call on the House of Representatives to:Amend the Corporations Law to prevent companies in future manipulating company structures and assets as a means of dismissing their workforce; andAmend the Workplace Relations Act with a view to increasing job security, in particular attending to those provisions dealing with allowable reasons for dismissal and the illegality of duress to accept AWAs as a condition of employment.Your petitioners call upon all Members to protect Australian workers rights to secure employment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 109 citizens)4294108ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continued changes of policy on Medicare/Medibank—particularly the closure of the Coorparoo Medicare/Medibank office and other such offices.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Medicare/Medibank offices are re-opened and made available to all residents who have the need to use such offices.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will forever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 108 citizens)429474ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these changes be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payments or extra daily fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 74 citizens)429460ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned pensioners and citizens of Australia hereby call upon the Australian Government to cancel the current charges for entry into a nursing home by frail aged peoples of Australia and that a more equitable fee structure be formulated. We point out that over many years the Private Nursing Home Industry has distributed large profits to shareholders, neglecting the need to upgrade buildings and facilities. We further call upon the Government to publish the profits of the Private Nursing Home Industry, before tax, over the past five years.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to direct the Government to provide a system that ensures the frail aged Australians be free from the stress and strains of the huge environmental changes of lifestyle in entering a nursing home and the uncer tainty of a better quality of life in their twilight years.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 60 citizens)429526ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House our concerns that extra tertiary places, previously announced for Queensland universities, may now be revoked.The previous Federal Government allocated an extra 7,600 funded student places for Queensland universities over a three year period. In addition $43.8 million in capital funding was set aside for campuses and facilities in regional areas, including Ipswich, Logan, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Wide Bay, Gladstone, Rockhampton and Cairns. However these initiatives are now in doubt following recent comments and speculation by Federal Government Ministers. Any reversal of the above decisions will severely disadvantage potential Queensland tertiary students. Our State continues to experience rapid growth and education services remain a priority need.We request the House to call on the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to guarantee that the extra tertiary places and facilities, previously announced for Queensland universities, be delivered.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 26 citizens)42952ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House their extreme concern at the proposal to charge entry fees for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners are extremely concerned that the charging of up front entry fees will force people to sell their homes in order to gain a nursing home bed.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that access to nursing home care is available on the basis of need and further that the family home is exempt from any asset test used to determine eligibility for such care.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 2 citizens)4295275A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Sexuality Discri mination Bill (SBD) which is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the near future. In particular, the petitioners wish to alert the House to concerns that this legislation will:Whilst granting special rights to homosexuals, take away significant rights from the majority of Australians.Force citizens to employ\tolerate homosexuals and their activities—where this is contrary to their beliefs.Further validate homosexual partnerships and pave the way for same-sex marriage and adoption rights.Burden proof on employers, churches, schools, etc, as to why they should be exempt from this legislation.Not exempt groups receiving government funding and thus force compliance under threat of loss of funds.Override States' rights, invalidate existing laws and put Australia at the mercy of international treaties.Curtail freedom of speech in churches when proclaiming scriptural truth on issue of family, sexuality, etc.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reject the Sexuality Discrimination Bill in its entirety and thereby protect the status and the rights of the vast majority of Australians.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 27 citizens)42951333K6Cameron Ross MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The humble Petition of the Citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:That we re-affirm our support of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia established by our Australian forefathers `humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God . . . in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth' (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 9th July 1900). We recognise its importance in ensuring the ongoing stability and unity of our nation.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will oppose any attempts to undermine our national stability and unity by making any changes or implementing any legislation that could achieve the status of a republic in Australia.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Ross Cameron3K6Mr Ross Cameron(from 133 citizens)4296343H4Halverson Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal;3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the House acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Mr Halverson3H4Mr Halverson(from 34 citizens)429623HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House community anger over the backward stance of the current Federal Government on the environment. The decision to mine uranium at Jabiluka is a symbol of this government's preference for `development at any cost', and the failure of the government to protect the Kakadu World Heritage Area has destroyed Australia's international reputation as a leader in environmental protection. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call on the Government to reverse its decision in light of further environmental assessments that confirms the potential of the mine to impact on the wilderness and world heritage values of Kakadu National Park.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 23 citizens)429621K26Latham Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for all Australians.Mr LathamK26Mr Latham(from 21 citizens)429644XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.This Petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: there is a growing demand for urgent federal government intervention to protect all Australia's remaining natural heritage forests.Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives call on the Federal Government to:immediately implement the moratorium clause in the National Forest Policy statement;permanently protect all remaining high conservation value forests throughout Australia, adequate to secure the biodiversity and natural and cultural heritage, by bringing them under the guardianship of indigenous peoples;utilise our extensive plantation timber for industry needs;create economic incentives for farm forestry employment on existing cleared lands in the propagation, establishment and management of sustainable permaculture style, mixed-species timber plantations, inter-grown with a variety of annual crops for fibre and food production;encourage investment in the growing and marketing of indigenous, plantation based tree products such as wattle seed, eucalyptus and tea tree oils, and other medicinal and nutritional resources; develop educational eco-tourism as a sensitively managed industry in appropriate forest areas, and with full respect for Aboriginal heritage and sacred sites;and further support the above initiatives by the progressive utilisation of military personnel and resources to assist rural communities to implement sustainable plantation forestry practices.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 44 citizens)4297909JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played by senior members of the coalition government.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 909 citizens)429760JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of the electorate of Barton calls to the attention of the House that the proposed closure of Rockdale Medicare will cause hardship to many families and significantly affect local commerce.Your petitioners therefore request that the House abandon such proposals and allow Rockdale Medicare to remain open.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 60 citizens)4297631AV5Quick Harry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the House of Representatives Indonesia's continued illegal occupation of East Timor and its refusal to grant the right of self-determination to the people of East Timor since its invasion of that country in 1975. Your petitioners ask the House of Representatives to call on the Australian Government to rescind recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor, so that:1. Australia's position will accord with the position of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.2. Australia will no longer be in violation of International Law.3. Australia will be able to work productively towards self-determination for East Timor as required by the International Court of Justice.4. Australia will take an important step towards helping resolve a situation of unremitting human rights abuses, dispossession and injustice.Mr QuickAV5Mr Quick(from 631 citizens)429765YU5Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:That we are opposed to any moves to cut funding to universities. We believe that further reductions in university funding would have a serious impact on the quality of higher education, and on access to university study for the Australian community. We emphasise that higher education has already absorbed substantial cuts in real funding levels over the last decade and that further reductions are unsustainable.Furthermore, we believe that the principle of democratic access to higher education requires that undergraduate study should be provided free of up-front tuition fees. We believe that any move to allow universities to charge up-front undergraduate fees would fundamentally threaten this basic right.Finally, we call on the Federal Government to provide supplementation through university operating grants so that university staff are adequately remunerated. We believe that the quality of higher education provided by universities is dependent in large part upon their ability to attract and retain appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced staff.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will not cut university funding levels, nor increase HECS, nor allow universities to charge up-front fees to undergraduate students. Universities must also be funded at levels which provide adequate remuneration for their staff.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 65 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business4298429816:25:004298McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I move:That this House calls on the Government to make closed captioning compulsory on all prime time programs and all news programs.From my earliest days in this House I have been a consistent advocate for the captioning of television programs. In fact I recall asking the then Minister for Communications in 1980 about the feasibility of introducing subtitles to television programs, especially news programs, to assist people with hearing difficulties. The then Minister for Communications, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, responded early in 1981 with advice about several developments such as the then recent introduction of SBS, which showed subtitled programs and also used sign language to accompany some of its early news bulletins. At that time SBS was working towards complete subtitling of its main news program and the ABC was giving consideration to the introduction of a closed captioning system for some of its programs. It was also stated:Every effort will be made to ensure that programs for the hearing impaired are included in these new services should they be established.Those were the words of the then Minister for Communications in 1981. What has happened since then? Not enough. Although there has been some extension of the provision of closed captioning, a very slow rate of progress has been achieved.Captioning started in Australia in 1982 when the Barchester Chronicles was shown on the ABC with captions. At present only 15 per cent of all programs are captioned. No caption programming is available on pay television, I am told. I do not have pay television myself, but I understand from people who watch it that there is no captioning on programming there. There is no legislation in Australia covering the captioning of television. The nearest thing to a regulation is contained in the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations' code of practice, which states that television stations will endeavour to increase captioning. To ask private companies to endeavour to spend more money on something that some of them say has no commercial advantage is something that beggars belief.Overseas it is a different story. In the USA, for example, the Telecommunications Act 1996 ensures 100 per cent captioning must be achieved by 2008 for all programs, regardless of how they are delivered. Currently, almost all free-to-air television in the US is captioned. The American regulators regard two per cent of turnover as being a reasonable indication of how much should be spent by a broadcaster on captioning.In the United Kingdom, the Broadcasting Act 1992 stipulates that 50 per cent of all programs must be captioned by July this year. This covers the commercial networks. The BBC has agreed to maintain captioning levels at a comparable, or higher, level than the commercial networks. We, in Australia, lag a long way behind in this area. We have not even achieved the goal of captioning all prime-time and news and current affairs programs, let alone all programs.A lot of people might be interested to learn who actually uses captions. They are used mainly by the deaf and the hard of hearing, who are unable to hear the soundtracks of many programs. Interestingly, they are also used by people learning English and can be used by school students as an aid to improving literacy.Some people wonder whether this is just something to help a small number of people in the community. How many deaf or hard of hearing people are there in Australia? The 1995 ABS national health survey found that over 1.7 million Australians identified themselves as having total or partial hearing loss. Indeed, deafness or partial deafness is the most widespread disability in this country. With our increasingly ageing population, the proportion of deaf and hard of hearing people will increase dramatically as time goes on.I have to admit some self-interest here, Mr Deputy Speaker, because, as you and some of my colleagues are keenly aware, I have a little deafness in one ear and a lot of deafness in the other ear.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—And you have it in both ears when I talk to you.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Indeed, when the Minister for Family Services was the Manager of Opposition Business, I used to find it was pleasant to be deaf all the time, mainly because he had nothing interesting to say at the time.Deafness is something that affects millions of people in this country. There are the 1.7 million who are hard of hearing and the families of those people. When you look at that, you see we are talking about three or four million people who are affected in various ways through either themself or a member of their family being hard of hearing.Those of you like the minister, who says he has normal hearing, should try to imagine what it is like not to be able to hear properly or even at all. How many of us wake up to the sound of a clock radio and absorb the day's news as we are getting ready to go to work or while we are driving to work? How many of us even have the television switched on in the background with an ear attuned for items of interest? A deaf person is unable to take advantage of that and a hard of hearing person usually cannot either. There are many opportunities available to others to tune into things that go on around them and to what is being broadcast. These people, be they deaf or hard of hearing, are considerably disadvantaged by their inability to hear.Consider the situation of the families of those who are hearing impaired. At night-time, watching television at home can often turn out to be very difficult. The television volume is turned up, often to an uncomfortably high level, which can cause discomfort to those with normal hearing. It is hardly conducive to a calm, relaxing time with the family when you have noise dominating the domestic scene. The person with the hearing disability feels frustrated because they cannot hear properly, while others feel as if they are being blasted by sound. Members of this chamber might recall, from recent experiences of the Speaker's changing the sound reinforcement levels in this chamber, the difficulties that can happen according to the varying amounts of individuals' hearing acuity.While captioning has been in Australia for over 15 years, as I said earlier, currently only 15 per cent of television programs are captioned. At that rate of progress it will be the year 2080 before total captioning is achieved, compared with the US where it will be 2008. The cost to the networks of captioning should not be huge and certainly not prohibitive. It should represent only a small percentage of their annual turnover and should be well within world benchmarks for the cost of captioning. Furthermore, the technology and expertise readily exist in this country to caption all forms of programs, which brings me to my next point.The parliament will soon be debating the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 , which includes a requirement for the provision by free to air operators of a closed captioning service for all prime time programming as well as for news and current affairs broadcast in prime time. This is a positive step and a start in the right direction.Because the digital terrestrial television broadcasting signal enables compression of the digital data stream, the available spectrum can be used more effectively. The capacity to replace a single analog channel with a number of digital programs means that transmission will create spare capacity. This spare capacity could be used to provide more captioning.The government is prepared to lend the commercial and national free to air television broadcasters seven megahertz of spectrum free of up-front charge. In return they will be required to simulcast their existing services in analog and digital formats for eight years, after which they will have to return the equivalent of their loaned spectrum to the Commonwealth. I would like to suggest that, in return for this loan of spectrum, the free to air broadcasters should be required to caption all programs. They are going to get a loan of a free public good and they should be willing to put something back in.As I have said before, while deaf and hard of hearing people want to be able to keep up with the news and current affairs just as much as anyone else, they should also be able to enjoy other programs and not be deprived of the entertainment available to those who do not have a hearing problem. It is very easy to become excluded from society if you are not allowed to access the forces that shape it. I think captioning should be provided not just for news, current affairs and prime time broadcasting but for all programs so that both the deaf and the hard of hearing can participate in the things that shape the life of our country.The digital compression legislation should include the provision that all programs should be captioned. We should get ourselves into a position to do this and keep up with the rest of the world. For once it would be nice to see us ahead rather than trailing terribly behind. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:36:004300Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The matter of hearing loss and deafness in Australia is not a pretty one. It is variously estimated that between one million and three million people suffer from some form of hearing impairment. In 1995 a government survey put that figure at 1.7 million people. As the aged population sector moves over 60 years of age, the rate of impairment is as high as 50 per cent.Two in every thousand babies born are deaf. Rubella, congenital defects, middle ear infection and birth weight under 1,500 grams all play a part in putting hearing at risk. In the indigenous population, the Menzies School of Health estimates that 60 per cent suffer hearing problems while 80 per cent of indigenous children are at risk through ear infections and ear drum injury.It is not surprising then that a large proportion of the population suffers from deafness or severe impairment. The Australian Caption Centre puts this figure at 3.7 per cent of the population and the ABS puts it at 3.9. So we know that about four per cent of Australians cannot enjoy the facility of hearing like most of us can.We live in an enlightened society which is better informed than any previous generation. Access to books and print is at an all-time high, while the electronic media—radio and television—dominates great portions of our lives. It is not uncommon for homes to have two or more television sets and three or four radios—many of them playing at the same time. We are shameless information and entertainment junkies. We demand access, sometimes at great expense, to telephony, the Internet, radio and television. In many instances we label it in legislation as a community or a universal service obligation.Against this background, spare a thought for the 1.7 million Australians who do not enjoy these various mediums of communication or entertainment or can enjoy them only in a very limited way. They too have rights which are taken for granted by the wider community and they stand at one side of this debate.The other side is more complex, especially as it applies to television and whose responsibility it is to deliver television services to the deaf and the hearing impaired. As the motion of the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) confirms, the main vehicle for delivering better standards of television information and entertainment lies in closed captioning. Closed captioning is a text delivered on part of the television screen. The signal generating it is carried with the video signal and is generated onto the screen by a decoder. Unlike open captioning—an example being subtitles—this form of captioning can be brought on the screen by the viewer at will by switching on his or her decoder. This system plays a vital part in the lifestyles of hearing impaired people and, well and generously handled, can richly enhance the quality of their lives. To date, Australia's record has been quite reasonable, given the diversity of our television choices and the large areas of metropolitan and regional Australia that need to be covered.While it is true that more can be done in this field, the facility is not without its difficulties, costs and technical problems. You might ask: what is the current Australian position? As the member for Watson said, currently about 15 per cent of all programs and 50 per cent of all prime time commercial television, excluding summer sport, is captioned. This includes all Australian drama, most US drama, sitcoms and some movies. The Federation of Commercial Television Stations believes that all commercial stations will cover most prime time programming in the next few years without legislative strictures. This may be a little slower than the US and the UK, but it is not a bad effort from a small population. The UK requires 50 per cent of all broadcasting to be captioned by July this year, while the US requires all programming to be captioned by the year 2008.The Seven Network has a commendable level of commitment to captioning. In Perth, Seven's news was the first in Australia to be closed captioned. It is the only network with an in-house off-line facility for pre-recorded programs and an on-line facility for live broadcasts. The other channels conduct their affairs through the ACC. The Seven Network first used this facility for the series Witness. It also live captioned Princess Diana's funeral, and last year it live captioned the AFL Grand Final.The Nine Network—which won the Caption Centre's Award for two years running and captions 40 per cent of its prime time programming—has captioned Friends, Suddenly Susan, Water Rats, ER, Sale of the Century and Burke's Backyard, and it has obtained Toyota's sponsorship for captioning 60 Minutes. The Ten Network, through the ACC, captions Neighbours and a number of movies and has New Zealand captioning for Hercules and Xena. It has recaptioned, through the ACC, Beverley Hills 90210, Just Shoot Me, Mad About You, The Nanny, NYPD Blue, Roseanne, Seinfeld and X-Files.The ABC, which has been captioning for 16 years, has progressively increased its captioning budget, which currently runs at $550,000. It recently captioned the popular series Sea Change and it captions seven state based 7 p.m. news bulletins and one late night bulletin. Not having sponsorship or commercial income, the ABC's position is quite different. It will cost the ABC $3 million to achieve captioning in prime time. The fact that the government has allocated $7 million over four years for captioning on ABC and SBS is an indication of the importance it attached to it.As many in the community ask: why not more? When it comes to overseas shows, especially American programs and movies, the transfer of captioning to the Australian circumstance is not automatic. Not only does the base program have to be reformatted from NTSC but the captioning, which is often owned by a separate company, needs to be bought, decoded, reformatted and restriped to the reformatted video and sound of the particular movie or program. Furthermore, movies are frequently edited to suit, with different markets having different requirements. Crocodile Dundee had a totally different type of editing in the United States from what we had in Australia. An American program which has been formatted with captioning cannot be put onto a television screen in Australia and played in the normal way. In addition to the technical problems, there are censorship considerations and sometimes the script has to be partially rewritten for the local idiom.Another problem to be considered is the change to digital technology, which will require a totally new technical approach to captioning. There is also the obvious problem of captioning two formats—the analog and the digital—during the eight-year co-transmission period, especially where live to air programs are concerned. This will require two captioning stenographers working at the same time in two separate booths for the co-transmission activity. Then there is the matter of live sport, which is very difficult to caption bearing in mind that the best captioning stenographer can only work at an intensive level for about 45 minutes. In fact, across the whole captioning regime, the matter of the competence and cost of captioning stenographers is a major point of concern, especially in the regionals.A similar problem exists with the Today show, Hey, Hey, It's Saturday, the Midday Show, et cetera, where there is often fast and furious live dialogue to be transcribed and where people speak over the top of one another. One also has to ask whether it is reasonable at this stage to ask that overseas news services which are used as overnight fillers, such as NBC News, the America Today show, et cetera, should have to be captioned. For example, if we force the hand of the commercial stations with such innovative programs as Sunrise and Daybreak, which would be very expensive to caption, will they continue?I sound a word of warning. An unreasonable demand in time or cost on the resources of regional television could have an unintended consequence and may lead to the diminution of regional news programs and their being subsumed by capital city programs. This could lead to an unacceptable centralising of news and the dropping of regionally based news programs. I vehemently oppose the centralising of media control and output, in the name of both ordinary Australians and hearing impaired Australians.Nine broadcasts 18 separate half-hour regional news bulletins. In Queensland alone, it runs five separate bulletins, while Seven runs three. You can imagine the cost of caption stenography in that circumstance. (Time expired)16:46:004302Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—This motion by the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) is very significant, particularly for the 1.7 million people who identify themselves as having a total or a partial hearing loss. That is the known figure, and it represents just less than 10 per cent of the population. However, as the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) pointed out, the more likely figure is somewhere in the vicinity of up to 3.4 million people, 20 per cent of the population. I would like to congratulate the member for Watson for some time ago convincing the then Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, to have captioned the evening news service on both the ABC and SBS. The former minister tells me quite emphatically that the member for Watson was absolutely merciless in his lobbying for the captioning of these news services.Making compulsory closed captioning on all prime time programs and all news programs is an area that Australia has taken a back seat in, and Australia now lags behind the rest of the Western world. In August 1997 Robert Scott, chief executive of the Australian Caption Centre, was quoted as saying that only 13 per cent of all Australian broadcasts carry closed captions. This was compared to the United States at 90 per cent and the United Kingdom at 45 per cent. I understand that almost all free to air television in the United States is captioned, and their Telecommunications Act 1996 ensures 100 per cent captioning by the year 2008, regardless of how programs are delivered. In the United Kingdom, the Broadcasting Act ensures 50 per cent of all programs are captioned by this year, and by recent standards they are well on track to achieve this.We pride ourselves in this country on having the highest consumption of new technologies as soon as they become available. Take, for example, our mass consumption of mobile phones and VCRs. With digital television being introduced in 2001, our appetite for this new innovative technology will be just as great, if not more. So why is Australia different to the United States and the United Kingdom when it comes to captioning? The member for Watson alluded earlier in his speech to his approaching the then Minister for Communications in early 1981, I think he said, to inquire about the developments in this area. But, compared to the United Kingdom and the United States, not a great deal has been achieved in this country.The necessary technology has existed for a decade and a half but, in addition to that time, generational advances in computer technology and in the communications industry have made it even easier now than it ever has been before. In the United States, regulators regard two per cent of turnover as being the responsible indicator of how much should be spent on captioning. Whilst SBS and the ABC—and congratulations to both of them—are well in front of their commercial counterparts when it comes to program captioning, we are still well behind other leading countries in this area. It is obvious that, unless we put in place some formal obligations by the broadcasters to provide this service within a reasonable timetable, it will not be significantly advanced. In fact, it just will not happen.Voluntary industry codes and goodwill, often favoured by many in the current government, simply will not work in this industry, which is driven by high profit motive. Unless government provides leadership in this area, Australia will maintain a level of commitment to those 1.7 million to 3.4 million people who have a hearing impairment well short of our international reputation for justice and fairness for all.With any modern society, it is important we should take and use the appropriate technology to ensure everyone in our nation is able to fully participate and enjoy what others take for granted every day. The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998, currently before the House, requires closed captioning of all prime time programming, in addition to all prime time news and current affairs. That is certainly good news. Inclusivity and fairness are admirable aims, and Australian aims, if I may say so. Therefore, anything which encourages an increase in the level of social debate in Australia, as well as allowing more people access to general entertainment and current affairs on television, is a good thing.However, we should not be content to leave the issue there. There is no better time than now to follow the lead of the United States and the United Kingdom and to put in place targets to lead us into the 21st century. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)16:51:004303Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am delighted to hear particularly the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), offer support for the digital television bill, because I have a grave concern that in fact in the other place opposition senators may choose, in their usual style, to delay the process of that bill. I think that in itself, if it were to occur, would bring about the exact opposite outcome to what the member for Watson is aiming for in his fine motion before the House today. So I would urge the member for Watson to use what I understand to be his considerable power within the opposition to ensure that there is smooth, steady and timely passage of that legislation when it reaches the other place. One thing is for certain: there needs to be a level of certainty so that all those operators of television, both the ABC and SBS, along with their commercial counterparts, can get on with the job of actually ordering the equipment and can get on with the business of providing digital television here in Australia.With that, as has been outlined by the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford), there is a requirement to upgrade the amount of captioning that is contained in Australian television programs, and that is a good thing. That only 15 per cent of programs across the networks are currently captioned is a great shame and a great disgrace. Less than half of prime time programming is captioned. It has taken the initiative of one of the commercial networks, if I could highlight the Seven Network and its efforts since 1977, to show the lead to the others. Seven, in the year 1996-97 increased its captioning from 38 to 53 per cent, while unfortunately the Ten Network's captioning commitment reduced to below 30 per cent. That probably had as much to do with the viability of that network at the time as anything else.It is important to highlight in this debate today the efforts of Channel Seven and, in particular, the efforts of Channel Seven Brisbane. John McFerran, who is the national manager of the Austext organisation within Seven, has had 40 years experience in the television industry. McFerran has worked very closely with everybody from the Queensland Deaf School right the way through to, in more recent years, the Australian Captioning Centre with a view to expanding the amount of caption material available to those who are hearing impaired or profoundly deaf.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Without compulsion.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—There has been no compulsion, as the member for Hinkler has quite rightly highlighted. Whilst those opposite will often suggest that the almighty dollar is the prime motivation of commercial operations in Australia—and high profits, I think the member for Port Adelaide said—it is more than admirable that the Seven Network, for one, has turned its profits back into its Austext operation. I was going to say `experiment' because I think it was when it started in 1977. Here we are in 1998 and over half of the Seven Network's programs in prime time are captioned as a result of Austext. It has been an incremental increase over a long period of time. That Austext service, providing people have access to or own a television with a teletext facility, is accessible to about 96 per cent of the Australian population through the Seven and affiliated networks. So that signal is there.I must submit, as secretary of the government's backbench policy committee—the member for Hinkler is our magnificent chairman—that the matter of closed captioning has not escaped members of the government. We have some concern that in the digital TV regime Seven is allowed to continue—and is, in fact, encouraged to continue—its great work in the area of closed captioning, so that those in our community who are deaf or hard of hearing are able to access information not just as a result of closed captioning but also through the Austext service.So there is probably a need for government to play a role in providing some legislative parameter. I think that is a reasonable and fair thing. A lot of that is addressed in the bill that is before the House. It is fair to set some targets. It is a matter that the government has not lost sight of.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking for 30 seconds when the debate is resumed.4304Debate resumed from 1 December 1997, on motion by Mr Eoin Cameron:That this House:(1) acknowledges that Australia's health system is reliant on a successful private health insurance industry complementing the public health system; (2) notes with concern the neglect of the former Labor Government to stem the exodus from private health insurance between 1984 and 1996;(3) calls on the Australian Labor Party to agree to supporting incentives for private health insurance as part of its policy platform at its annual conference in 1998;(4) expresses its support for the incentives provided by the Federal Government for people to maintain private health insurance and for those who do not have it, to take it out;(5) calls on private health insurers to minimise any premium increases which may force more Australians to reconsider their membership;(6) welcomes any further policies which encourage people who can afford to take out private health insurance, to do so; and(7) calls on the Government to refer the issue of private health insurance and the Australian Health system to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs for further solutions to alleviate the decline in private health insurance caused by the policies of the former Labor Government.16:56:004304McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—The motion on private health insurance put forward by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) is a matter that is important for this House to get on to. It is a matter that has been stood over from a previous discussion on private members business. A number of members at that time were taking account of it. It is a matter that today people from both sides wanted to talk some more upon. I did not originally intend taking part in this debate, but the person who was supposed to take part in the debate has not turned up. The motion states:That this House:(1) acknowledges that Australia's health system is reliant on a successful private health insurance industry complementing the public health system;(2) notes with concern the neglect of the former Labor Government to stem the exodus from private health insurance between 1984 and 1996;(3) calls on the Australian Labor Party to agree to supporting incentives for private health insurance as part of its policy platform at its annual conference in 1998;(4) expresses its support for the incentives provided by the Federal Government for people to maintain private health insurance and for those who do not have it, to take it out;It then mentions a number of other reasons why this government member thinks that somehow or other the previous Labor government was lacking. What the government member has missed is that under this government's stewardship private health insurance has gone down absolutely dramatically. For a government member to put forward such a proposition shows that these people do not even take any interest in what happens, let alone do what they are supposed to be doing. This motion is an absolute farce.The member for Stirling and the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) have been in here supporting this proposal. Rather than attacking a former Labor government, they should be asking the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) why their proposals have failed. If the government member who was supposed to be speaking now had been in here, she would have been talking up their point of view, but she obviously does not believe in what the member for Stirling or the member for Lindsay have to say. I will resume my place. I am sure my colleague the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) will have a few things to say about this as well.17:00:004305Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I rise largely in response to the remarks made by the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), where he was critical of the member for Bowman (Mrs West) for her inability to be here and for the opportunity she otherwise would have had to participate in this debate. It has been all too easy for the Chief Opposition Whip, for reasons that remain a mystery to the parliament, to simply indicate unfounded criticism of what the government's role has been. The member for Bowman is here to promote what she believes is a motion worthy of the support of the House—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Five minutes late.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Throw her out.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—I am not sure what the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) was aiming to assist me with. I merely wanted to indicate that the member for Bowman is here to promote what she believes is a motion in the interests of the House. The interests of the House are not being advanced by the sort of interjection that we are getting currently from the Chief Opposition Whip and from the member for Prospect. It seems to me that the interests of both the House and the nation would be better advanced if the member for Bowman were given the opportunity to introduce her motion.17:01:004305McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—As the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) indicated, this government has knocked about health in this country dramatically. The now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised before the last election that he would increase private hospital coverage by 40 per cent by the year 2000. Since this government has come to power, over 300,000 people have left private health insurance—71,000 in the March quarter of this year alone. It now represents just 31.1 per cent of the population. Instead of an increasing trend, we have a dramatically decreasing trend in private health insurance.In New South Wales 23,000 people dropped out of private health insurance in the March quarter, or 0.4 per cent of the population. Some 800 people are quitting private health insurance every day, and that is despite the massive $680 million rebate that this government has given to the private health insurance industry. Effectively, as soon as they have the money in one door, they put up the prices out the back door. That has increased the cynicism in the population, and they are continuing to leave in droves substantially because of the inadequacy of the product that is offered by the private health insurance industry. The vice-president of the Australian Medical Association has said—and this is not the words of the Labor opposition:Dr Wooldridge's solution—to provide a subsidy of $600 to $700 million—had been a disaster.That is from someone who is obviously experienced in the industry.It makes a mockery of this motion and the government's policy in this area to suggest that they have some answers. Clearly, they have no answers. For the first time in Australia's history, the premiers walked out over an offer to fund the public health system. One of them was a Labor premier; the rest were Liberals. Regrettably, the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has been quite dishonest in describing this funding package. For instance, on 17 May he was reported as saying:It's a very generous offer, $2.9 billion over the next five years, an increase of 15 per cent . . . The commentator on the Seven Network's Face to Face then referred to Dr Hewson's analysis of the government's offer. Immediately Dr Wooldridge conceded:If you take age out, if you take population out, if you take any drop-out in private health insurance out, the increase is one-and-a-half per cent a year.That is before he allows for inflation. In fact, it is a negative. And they are getting stuck into the state premiers for rejecting such a ridiculous package!The fact of the matter is that the government has no answers. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) is on record as saying, `Let us look at some no claim bonus arrangement,' which will obviously benefit only the healthy, not those who need care. The Prime Minister has failed to rule out a top-up fee. As reported in the Australian on 27 May:JOHN Howard last night refused to rule out the introduction of up-front fees for public hospital patients following the next election, after appearing to do so in parliament earlier in the day.When asked what the situation would be after the election, he commented:Whatever happens after that is hypothetical.He failed to rule it out. We all know the Prime Minister's track record. He spent the 1980s trying to decimate Medicare. This government has a philosophical objection to the universality of Medicare, which enables all Australians to get top quality care in state-of-the-art hospitals. Instead of funding public hospitals, this government wants to shift funds to the private hospital system where, only if you have a quid, will you be able to buy high quality care. Australians want their public hospital system to be state of the art and they want a Medicare system that is universal and that is accessible to all of them. (Time expired)17:06:004306West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this private member's motion put forward by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron). This motion acknowledges that Australia's health system is reliant on a successful private health insurance industry complementing the public health system. It goes without saying that we do recognise that we need a robust dual system of health in this country to complement what exists at the moment.When my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) spoke on this motion earlier this year or late last year, he brought to the attention of the House the former Labor government's appalling record on the issue of private health insurance. I need not remind the House of the arrogance of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, when he told the Australian people in 1993 that they could rely on Medicare and that they did not need private health insurance. I am sure Mr Keating did not need to take out private health insurance; he could afford to pay.When Labor came to power in 1983, 64 per cent of the population had private health insurance. By the time they left office in 1996, this had fallen to 34 per cent—34 per cent from 64 per cent. Labor did nothing to halt that decline. In fact, Labor hastened the decline by withdrawing existing subsidies and pushing more costs onto the private health insurance funds. This added $850 million per year to the funds' costs. The Productivity Commission has since estimated this has meant premiums are 30 per cent higher than they would be otherwise. Most of the people who left the funds over this time were the younger, healthier members. The funds today generally have a higher cost membership due to a higher proportion of older, sicker people who claim more money every year than they contribute by way of their premiums—thanks to policies of the former Labor government.Time and time again, the Labor government discouraged people from taking out private health insurance. In 1992 when Mr Howe was the health minister, he said `Private health insurance makes an insignificant contribut ion'—I will quote that again—`an insignificant contribution to health financing in Australia.' At the time, private health insurance was raising in the vicinity of $3 billion a year; the Medicare levy was raising only $2.5 billion. I would say that is a fairly significant contribution.The participation rate in private health funds is higher today than it would have been had this government not introduced incentives. The most recent figures show that over a million private health insurance policy holders are now receiving the benefits of the government's incentives scheme. In fact, in May 1998, 1,276,418 people were receiving the direct benefit of the government's incentives. In my electorate of Bowman alone, 14,000 people benefit directly from the government's private health insurance incentives; 14,000 of my constituents currently receive, or are eligible to receive, incentives to take out private health insurance. The number of people participating in the scheme has increased steadily since it began in July last year.Unlike Labor, we are dedicated to ensuring that the public health sector is complemented by a private health sector that is fair, affordable, customer friendly and good value for money. The private health insurance scheme is the first genuine attempt in decades by a federal government to encourage people back into private health insurance.But there is always more to be done. We are also considering a wide range of possible options for future reform. At the same time, we are looking to the industry to implement change to maintain value in the services they offer. New legislation will support the private health insurance incentives and will reduce the problem of large and unexpected out-of-pocket costs and foster new competition in the industry. National trials of simplified billing and informed financial consent are encouraging. But there is only so much we can do on our own; we need the support of all players in the health care sector. Private health insurance funds can do their bit by minimising premium increases which may force more Australians to reconsider their membership. What is the Labor Party's answer to these problems? The Labor Party has no answer other than to scrap the $450 a year private health insurance incentive. The industry is in difficulty today as a direct result of the former Labor government's policy of neglect. Labor's only answer now is to take away from people the incentives we have introduced. (Time expired)17:11:004307Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The bottom line issue that we are talking about today when we address this item of private members business, private health insurance, is in fact—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Tell us about the figures in your newsletter.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—I will one day if you would believe me, but you would not; you do not understand the truth. The main issue here today is the care for our community, the care for our families and our children, and the need for appropriate health care for those communities. What we should be doing is putting money back into the public health system, not subsidising private health insurance companies which keep raising their premiums.Let us just have a look at a little bit of the history of this debate. In August 1996, under pressure over health fund increases, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised a thorough inquiry into health funds to investigate the problem. Eighteen months later, what do we have in front of us? The Industry Commission produced a draft report in 1996; the Industry Commission produced a final report in February 1997; the government announced that it supported the Industry Commission recommendation to implement lifetime community rating; and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) said in February 1997 he needed six months to work up the government's proposal before introducing legislation to implement lifetime community rating. In February 1997 he needed six months. I understand nothing has been heard of that plan since.People have been leaving private health insurance because they are simply not getting value for money. If people exercise their free choice and drop out of private health insur ance it is their right to make that judgment. Health insurance premiums for 2.5 million Australians have increased three times in the past 19 months.In August 1996, the Prime Minister assured health fund members that he would personally scrutinise—I repeat, `personally scrutinise'—all future health fund premium increases. I sat here that day in this chamber and heard the Prime Minister make that very statement. Since then, premiums have gone up by 15 to 20 per cent and have completely swallowed up the government's rebate—I recall it was something like $600 million; it is completely gone.In the December quarter of last year, 700 Australians a day on average abandoned private health insurance. The tragedy of all of this is quite simple. The tragedy is that the money for the rebate came from $800 million taken from the public hospitals, $500 million taken from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and $400 million taken by abolishing the Commonwealth dental health program. That is where the money came from to go into this crazy scheme for somehow propping up private health insurance companies.I am at a bit of a loss to understand what the government believed they were going to achieve by that. If I recall correctly, almost the day that the rebate, that subsidy, was announced, a fund put up its fees, and very shortly after that several others did the same thing. At the end of the day, what the government should be concerned about, before anything else, is a judgment on whether or not the families in the communities of each one of us in this place have a confidence that they deserve to feel in their health system.Many people say they want to belong to private health insurance, that they want to take out that insurance but that they simply cannot afford it. Why? Because they are not getting value for the money they put into it. The Prime Minister, after giving an assurance in this very place in front of all of us in August 1996 that he would personally scrutinise all future health fund premium increases, has done nothing but see countless increases. As I said, premiums have gone up by, on average, 15 to 20 per cent and that has been completely swallowed up by the government's rebate of that $600 million, that rebate funded by removing dollars from other areas of government responsibility for health. This government stands condemned for its continuing mismanagement of the health system, and it is about time the government started to listen a little bit more carefully to the noises coming from the community about their absolute disappointment and dismay at the way this government is handling the whole health issue in this country.17:15:004308Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—I am pleased to speak on the motion by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) because of the strong support for private health insurance from many of my constituents. Good health is fundamental to our quality of life. Governments must ensure their citizens enjoy the best health that medical science can provide and balance needs with costs. The answer to funding the system does not lie at either end of the philosophical spectrum. A fully nationalised system does not provide the answer. Efficiencies, costs and overservicing are unmanageable when the government alone picks up the tab. A system funded entirely through private insurers will not work either. Millions of Australians could not afford insurance and will be denied access to services.As with most problems, solutions lie between two extremes. An optimum health system would see patients who can afford to pay their fair share doing so through private health insurance premiums and those who cannot accessing publicly funded services. When the Labor Party came into government in 1983, 64 per cent of Australians had private health insurance cover. In 1996, when this government came into office, only 34 per cent had private cover. Despite our efforts to reverse the decline, only 31 per cent are now insured. Had the Labor government valued private health insurance, health costs would be shared more equitably. Its ideological resistance allowed spiralling drop-out rates and costs. Over the past two years, hundreds of constituents have rung my office to say how much they value their private cover. It gives them peace of mind to know that they can choose who and where they get their medical services from, but they feel that they are unfairly bearing the costs of the health system.I bring to the attention of the House the views of Mrs Shirley Paull, a constituent of mine who lives at Willunga. Mrs Paull has been battling breast cancer for 10 years. She has spent the last nine in remission but has now found out that the cancer has spread through her body. Mrs Paull has been a great campaigner in the fight against breast cancer, raising money for research and working in lobby and support groups. Mrs Paull told me that she valued her health insurance but would like to campaign for gap insurance and tax deductibility. This view is shared by many of my constituents who believe their prudence should be rewarded.Unexpected gaps between the rebate from the funds and the charged fees are causing disillusionment with private health insurance. The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has initiated a trial in billing systems to address the gap problem. The trials will see patients informed about the cost of the gap prior to receiving services. Patients will be provided with just one bill so that running to multiple providers and insurers will no longer be required after receiving some medical procedures. Trials involving 20,000 privately insured patients are being conducted in several states.Unfortunately, the former Hawke government, because of its ideological opposition to private health cover, abandoned tax deductibility. To reintroduce it could cost many billions of dollars. It is a totally reasonable request but one that the government does not have the money for at this time. This government has introduced two major initiatives to encourage people to remain in, or take out, private health cover. The private health insurance incentive scheme has provided financial support to 1.3 million Australian policy holders to help them with the cost of their premiums. A subsidy or tax rebate of up to $125 per year for singles, $250 for couples and $450 for families is paid to individuals earning up to $35,000 per year and families earning up to $70,000 or more per year. The scheme should have been provided years ago when the problem became apparent. The previous government stood by and did nothing as private coverage dived in the late 1980s and early 1990s.To encourage those who can afford to pay, a one per cent Medicare surcharge is applied to individuals earning over $50,000 per year and families earning over $100,000 per year if they do not take out private health insurance. No doubt other initiatives are needed to restore an equitable balance to Australia's health system. An optimum system is not an option, it is fundamental, and the government will work with the health industry to improve the system.One of the major problems for any government is the spiralling costs of providing the newest developments in health care. A major issue was recently raised with me by representatives from the Flinders Medical Centre, an outstanding facility in South Australia servicing my constituents. Medical science is increasingly extending our life span, but services are increasingly expensive and someone has to pay for them. We either pay the costs through our taxes, a medical levy, private health cover or through the gap. The answer lies in finding the right balance.Australia has a great public health system. Patients in Australia's public hospitals receive care, backed by research leading the world in many areas, but there are real problems in accessing non-urgent services, and clearly this is not good enough. It is a shame the states have not accepted the Commonwealth's offer of an extra $2.9 billion in the next round of Australian health care agreements. The accompanying funding to help reduce hospital waiting lists is desperately needed by the people in my electorate.17:20:004309Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I notice with interest that the motion moved by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) completely ignores the single most important issue with regard to health in this country at the present time, and that is the Howard government's failure to provide enough funds to all of the states and territories, bar Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, to allow them to keep their public health sys tems from collapse. I would also like to reiterate at this stage that notice of the member for Stirling's motion was actually given on 1 December 1997 and I think this is more than the first occasion it has been brought on for debate in this House.The single most important issue with regard to health in this country—and the member for Stirling has ignored it—is the Howard government's failure to provide enough funds to all the states and territories, bar Queensland and the ACT. Instead, the member for Stirling, in a similar fashion to a motion moved by the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) earlier in the day, appears to think it is more important to have a roll down memory lane and then try to apportion blame for the government's own failures and its inability to come to grips with health matters in this country at a place other than its own two feet. The member for Stirling's motion should read: `That the House recognises that every state and territory government, bar Queensland and the ACT, is of the opinion that the Howard government has dudded them on public health funding and that the people of Australia are going to be the victims of outrageously long waiting lists and perhaps inadequate care; and that the Howard government's $600 million a year private health insurance scheme has been a complete and utter flop with 71,000 people dropping out of private health care in the first three months of this year, leaving only 31.1 per cent of Australians with private health insurance, a new record low.' And this government ought to be proud of that. That is what the member for Stirling should be addressing.By his neglect and also that of the speakers on the government's benches, I can only assume that perhaps he and they need an update on what is really happening out there in the public health system. Let me give the member for Stirling and the government speakers on this motion some insight into how this government's failures on health are affecting and will affect my constituents. Due to the failure of the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) to halt the haemorrhaging of people from private health insurance, public hospitals in my area need more money to cope with the extra patients and the extra demands for services. Fairfield Hospital, right in the heart of my electorate, needs an extra $3 million to cope with an unexpected 1,200 new patients over the coming 12 months. Liverpool Hospital needs an extra $8 million to cater for over 3,000 new patients. Westmead Hospital needs a whopping $20 million over the next 12 months to cope with an unexpected explosion in patient demand with almost 8,000 new patients seeking to use its services.New South Wales needs, on the whole, $350 million from the Howard Government; it has been offered $17 million. Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and even the member for Stirling's home state of Western Australia are in a similar predicament. They need substantial funding from this government to avoid their public hospitals collapsing under the weight of extra patient demand, and yet they have been offered a pittance.The result of the Howard government's scrooge-like mentality is that waiting lists, already at record levels, will double over the next year. Do not just take my word for it. What does the AMA have to say about it? It said just that only last week. Hospital waiting lists will double unless the federal government dramatically lifts its Medicare funding to the states. The AMA also said that the government's failure to come to grips with the health issue has pushed the public and private health care system to the brink of collapse.There are roughly 750 patients waiting for elective surgery at Fairfield Hospital in my electorate at the present time. Unless it receives that extra $3 million funding, we are going to see that number explode to 1,500. Does the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) want this on his conscience? Does the Member for Stirling want this on his conscience? Surely it is a similar story in the member for Stirling's own electorate? Why doesn't he mention and address the crisis in public hospitals that has occurred because of this government's action? What is he afraid of? Why isn't the member standing up for his constituency? Unless the Prime Minister comes through with the extra public health funding the system needs to avoid falling into absolute disrepair, we are going to see the same situation as developed following the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health care program. There are 15,000 people on a waiting list in south-western Sydney for public dental care at this very moment, each of them facing an average waiting time of 38 months for treatment.That is the direction in which our public hospitals are heading unless members on the government side—representatives like the member for Stirling and the other speakers who came in here ranting on about this wonderful motion—can find the courage to confront the Prime Minister and the cabinet in the party room and in the committees and get that extra funding the system needs to survive. That is what the member for Stirling should be discussing here today. The fact that his motion has ignored all mention of the most serious issues confronting the health system today has robbed it of any integrity it might otherwise have enjoyed.I condemn the motion before the House and again call on the members of the government to make sure that adequate and proper funding go to the relevant states so that they can meet their obligations under the private and public health care system. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.2K6BROUGHMr Brough—We still had 25 seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I had a very great contribution to make in 25 seconds of the total failure of the opposition. It is a good thing that it was not a—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! You will resume your seat. You did not get the call and you did not have the 25 seconds.Business4311Motion (by Mr Truss) proposed:That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. 17:26:004311Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The opposition does not accept that motion. As I understand it, there has been no agreement about postponement of grievances. We are talking here about one of the rare opportunities in the parliamentary sitting program for ordinary members of the parliament to have more than a five-minute discussion about issues that are of importance to them. That has been denied us. Question put: That the member be not further heard.17:31:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. 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.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Gallus, C. A. Ferguson, L. D. T.Hawker, D. P. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Baldwin, P. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the question be now put.17:35:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. 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.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Gallus, C. A. Ferguson, L. D. T.Hawker, D. P. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Baldwin, P. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Truss's ) be agreed to.17:39:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)85Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. 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.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Gallus, C. A. Ferguson, L. D. T.Hawker, D. P. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Baldwin, P. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.17:42:004313Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), who moved this motion. What is meant by `a later hour of the day'? Are all members of this parliament going to be told when the grievance debate is going to be resumed in this House, or is this another never-ever non-core lie of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The honourable member for Prospect should resume her seat.Miscellaneous431310000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed today, 1 June 1998, at 8 p.m., for the next meeting of the Main Committee unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills4314The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 1) 1998 Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997 Bills4314r3064314Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House.Bills4314r4544314Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate, with further amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add:(11) Schedule 14 commences immediately after the commencement of subsection 543A(2A) of the Social Security Act 1991 (inserted in that Act by the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Act 1998 ).(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 14 (line 4), at the end of subsection (4), add "but the Secretary may approve, in particular cases, an allowable study time of up to four times the minimum period in which it is possible to complete the course as a full-time student".(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 31 (after line 12), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the activity test non-payment period applies to the person.(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 37 (line 25), omit "informs the person that the person is required", substitute "gives the person a written notice stating that the person is required, within a period stated in the notice, being a period of not less than 14 days,".(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 37 (after line 31), after subsection (1), insert:Content of notice(1A) A notice under paragraph (1)(c) must inform the person to whom it is given of the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice without reasonable excuse.(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (after line 7), after subsection 582B(1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the activity test breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (after line 29), after subsection 583B(1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 10), at the end of subsection (3), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 16), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 28), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 67 (line 4), at the end of subsection (2), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 67 (line 9), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(13) Schedule 1, item 7, page 90 (line 7), omit "Table BB", substitute "point 1067L-B3".(14) Schedule 4, item 5, page 171 (line 12), at the end of subsection (3), add: ; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(15) Schedule 4, item 5, page 173 (line 2), at the end of subsection (2), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(16) Schedule 9, item 17, page 213 (line 13), at the end of paragraph (e), add:, including: (iii) up front course fees; and (iv) HECS payments; and (v) union fees; and (vi) costs of text books; and (vii) costs of any tools or equipment required to undertake the course, including computer software; and (viii) expenses directly related to any field trips undertaken for the purposes of the course; and (ix) such other expenses as are approved by the Secretary.(17) Schedule 9, item 17, page 213 (lines 14 to 17), omit the note.(18) Page 334 (after line 3), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 14—Amendment of the Social Security Act 1991 relating to minimum age for youth allowance1 Paragraph 543A(2A)(p)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (p) is receiving Commonwealth funded intensive assistance for jobseekers or State, Territory or community provided case management approved by the Secretary or, where no intensive assistance or case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake intensive assistance or case management; orMotion (by Mr Ruddock) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills4315s1594315Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Committees43154315431517:47:004315Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund I present the advisory report of the committee, incorporating a dissenting report entitled Twelfth Report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund inquired into the Heritage Protection Act 1984 and reported to parliament on 2 April 1998. Later that day the government presented the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . The main objective of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 is to establish procedures for the preservation and protection of indigenous areas and objects of significance. The bill provides for a heritage accreditation regime for the states and territories. Heritage protection issues then could be resolved at the most appropriate level and, where possible, through mediated outcomes for the benefit of all Australians. The process aims to avoid the problems, costs and litigation associated with heritage protection such as were encountered with the proposed Hindmarsh Island Bridge.The Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund has been pleased to conduct an inquiry into the heritage protection bill. The matter was referred to the committee by the House of Representatives on 2 April 1998, following the second reading of the bill. The committee received 28 submissions and held two days of public hearings in Melbourne and Canberra. All evidence has been carefully considered. In particular, the committee sought to be sensitive to any evidence that might reject the views that it formed for the report on the 1984 act. Significantly, the committee did not receive evidence that would encourage it to amend the recommendations contained in its 11th report. This is necessary because the government presented the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 on 2 April 1998, following tabling of the committee's 11th report. Consequently, the committee's recommendations could not be adopted in the bill as presented.If the recommendations of the committee's 12th report are incorporated into the bill, they will ensure significant improvements to the protection of indigenous heritage. The report recommends that the bill provide blanket or presumptive protection of indigenous heritage. Further, the committee recommends a more detailed and comprehensive Commonwealth standard by which the state and territory heritage protection regimes may be accredited. The Commonwealth standard should provide for state and territory committees, including an appropriate gender balance and indigenous representation. The committee's report further suggests that appropriate qualifications for the position of Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection be specified.The committee was also concerned that the definition of `national interest' should include the protection of indigenous heritage. Under this criterion, appeal would be made to the Commonwealth, even where heritage protection regimes were accredited in the states and territories. Were the government to accept this recommendation, the proposed legislation would resemble more a statute of last resort, such as the 1984 act that it is intended to replace. Notably, legislation of last resort was endorsed by the committee's 11th report, tabled on 2 April.In conclusion I would like to thank the committee and, in particular, my coalition colleagues for their diligence and commitment to the inquiry and for producing a report which will benefit all Australians. I would also like to thank the member for Franklin, Mr Harry Quick, for his contribution to the committee, particularly in relation to the bill inquiry. It remains in the interest of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike that we work together to provide the highest possible level of protection for this country's precious indigenous heritage. I commend the report to the House.17:51:004316Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—The tabling of the 12th report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund is an occasion of profound regret for those with an interest in the integrity and effectiveness of the parliamentary committee system, those with a belief in the responsibilities of the legislature as a check on the burgeoning powers of the executive, and those committed to the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage.The 11th report of this committee resulted from its inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, whilst the 12th report deals with the government's legislation to repeal and replace the 1984 act. Both reports had the benefit of being formulated after the 1996 report by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC of her review of the 1984 act. It is to be regretted that, despite a number of sound recommendations, neither of the committee's reports matched the insight, rigour or constructive criticisms evident in the Evatt report.The 11th report had all members of the committee accepting Justice Evatt's recommendation that any new act should continue to provide Commonwealth legislation of last resort together with a thorough accreditation regime for state and territory heritage protection regimes. All members accepted the decision to endorse that view in the 12th report. Unfortunately, the majority in the 12th report remained silent on the fact that the 1998 bill fails to deliver either legislation of last resort or comprehensive and acceptable accreditation criteria for state and territory regimes.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 marks the withdrawal of the Commonwealth from Aboriginal heritage protection in all but a few narrowly defined instances of a so-called `national interest'. In seeking to do so the government is walking away from its constitutional and international responsibilities. In its silent acquiescence to this move in defiance of its explicit recommendation, the coalition members of the joint committee have ill-served the parliament, ill-served the committee process and ill-served indigenous heritage. I would remind the committee chairman of his own words in tabling the committee's 11th report:There continues to be a need for Commonwealth legislation concerning indigenous heritage protection and such legislation should be provided as a statute of last resort.These words supported the recommendation of the majority in the committee when they said:The Committee accepts the need both for legislation of last resort, and an accreditation regime.The coalition members of the committee have remained silent in the face of this glaring contradiction between their stated principles on the one hand and their support of the government's legislation on the other.I turn now to our international obligations. Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That covenant obliges our national government to protect and preserve the collective rights of our indigenous peoples to enjoy their own culture. It further requires that all signatories enact laws to preserve and protect sites associated with that culture. Another of its provisions that places the 1998 bill at odds with the covenant is the requirement to actively involve indigenous people in the development of those laws. The government has ignored the Evatt report and the report of the minority of the parliamentary joint committee in failing to establish an Aboriginal cultural heritage advisory council including indigenous members or an independent Aboriginal heritage protection agency.This bill leaves us without an integrated and consistent approach to the protection of indigenous heritage. There are, in fact, at least three pieces of existing legislation that bear on the Commonwealth's responsibilities in this area, each with its own perspective: the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1993, dealing with world heritage values; the Australian Heritage Protection Act 1976, dealing with national heritage values; and the legislation immediately under discussion, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, dealing specifically with indigenous heritage values.There is a need at the national level for a comprehensive and integrated Aboriginal cultural heritage regime. We missed the boat in this bill if we were to deliver what Elizabeth Evatt has called `a systematic assessment of what is needed to ensure that Aboriginal people are able to maintain, protect, develop, and fully enjoy their culture and heritage'. It is not my intention to debate here the merits or otherwise of the government's bill—that will be done later this week—but rather to reflect on the failure of the committee system in general, and this committee in particular, to bring telling influence to bear in having the government deliver appropriate and effective legislation.The government's rationale for walking away from Aboriginal heritage protection is that it will put in place accredited state and territory regimes to perform the tasks. The fact is that the 1984 act was intended to be legislation of last resort with underlying state and territory regimes. The fact is that 14 years later such legislation is non-existent in some places and inadequate in others. For many people, the Commonwealth legislation is legislation of only resort.If we needed a political reality test on the difficulties of developing Commonwealth-state regimes to address a problem, we need look no further than the issue of uniform national gun laws. Rarely has there been such a clear popular consensus on the need for national action. Rarely has there been such swift national action or such multi-partisan support for a uniform national approach. And look how quickly even this initiative has faltered when put to the test of uniform implementation. Already we see state governments appearing to buckle before sectional pressures. What possible hope is there for a state based approach in a much more contentious area?This is an area where the committee could have given more specific guidance. It will not be sufficient to have national substantive or legislative criteria for state regimes. To have any hope of success it is essential that the criteria go to processes and procedures in addition to statutes. Many problems of the past, and today, stem as much from a failure to implement or apply existing law in a fair, efficient and equitable way as they do from the absence of laws or inadequacies in their drafting.The issue is one of political will to act. It is an issue of procedural equity. History has given people little faith that the states will deliver Aboriginal heritage protection without comprehensive oversight. This report, and the bill it refers to, comes to this place in the context of a wider and contentious national debate. We cannot ignore the debate on native title in turning our attention to this legislation. In the face of the erosion of native title and of the right to negotiate attached to its incidence, heritage protection legislation will be all that indigenous people will have to turn to. The debate on this bill must be seen in that context. It is also in that context that we must reflect on the inadequate consultation and investigation that preceded its presentation in this place.We need, and indigenous Australians deserve, better legislation than this. And they need better attention to their concerns than this committee was able to deliver.Bills4318r5274318Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.17:59:004318O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—This is the second tranche of legislation which seeks to complete putting in place the new arrangements for the marketing of wheat internationally and domestically into the future. To put this into context, I make the point that it was resolved some 10 years ago when John Kerin was the federal primary industries minister that we would start to change the statutory marketing arrangements for a number of commodities including wheat and that we would move towards a structure which resulted in grower ownership of whatever model developed. We also decided back in 1989 that whatever corporate structure became the body that ran what we know as the single desk and managed the collective selling of the wheat pool would need a capital base. So from 1989 growers began to contribute to a levy to provide a capital base for the company or structure to take over this role about now.Over time that capital base has grown not only through contributions from growers but also through its own earnings on the investment. There has been a capital growth and that is in itself the subject of some debate between the industry and the government, which I will come to further down the track in this contribution. That capital base became known as the Wheat Industry Fund. I mention it now in setting the background and also in explaining the reasons why I am proposing the amendment that will be circulated in my name and moved at the end of this contribution.When the first tranche of this legislation was introduced into the House, we found that the government had chosen to go in a particular direction to try to take account of a grower corporate model—some kind of corporate structure that growers would own and control—and also some way of integrating that capital base into the grower corporate model. The structure chosen by the government was an A- and B-class share structure which gave specific rights in the corporate model to growers as growers of wheat—in other words, if you were a grower, you got a share and you were in the game. The government tried to blend into it as well capital rights for the holders of contributions in the Wheat Industry Fund. It tried to give those voting shares in proportion to the amount of capital that had been invested.It became evident to us in October last year, when this legislation first arrived, that the structure the government had adopted was a complex one, that it was legalistic and had a number of problems. There were other ways of doing this but this was the model which had been chosen.I made the comment in the last debate, when we virtually had a mirror image of where we are now, that the government should not take the Wheat Marketing Legisla tion Amendment Bill 1998 through the House—pending at that time an examination by the Senate standing committee which had given itself a reference to have a look at this—because there was substantial concern among growers about the way it had been unfolding. At the time the minister had assured me that he had industry support for the plans. But we suddenly found that on the Senate committee the majority members—that is, the government's own members on the committee—were deeply troubled by this structure. Arising out of their inquiry, they finally came to an accommodation with the first tranche of legislation but that was subject to a number of things taking place in the second tranche.Now the second tranche has arrived and the problems have not been resolved, certainly not to my satisfaction and not to the satisfaction of a substantial number of growers who have been in contact with us during the last fortnight. Therefore, I am proposing as an amendment tonight that we defer the implementation of this legislation for 12 months and that we extend the existing arrangements—the underwriting of the Wheat Board—for a further 12 months while the growers come to consider more fully the model which they are now coming to, the model which, interestingly, my instincts took me to when I took over this portfolio area from Bob Collins on behalf of the opposition and I had my first look at it.Before I met with industry representatives, I looked at it and thought: how would I do this? Now I find that so did a lot of other people, and they have all reached the same conclusions. What has now come to the fore is that there was no need to go for a convoluted corporate structure that tried to somehow build ownership and representation of the money bank, the WIF, into the grower corporate model, which will be doing the management of the arrangements, running the single desk and representing the farmers. There were other ways of doing it. It was always my view that a far better way to do it would have been to set it up as a corporate cooperative in the same structure as a number of modern corporate cooperatives in the dairy industry, both in Australia and in Europe, have been formed in line with cooperative principles but under a corporate structure and to separate the money base, the WIF, quite independently. That is now emerging as what should have happened.Let me explain why this is so. Western Australian growers in particular were aware of this from day one. I now discover that growers in New South Wales—in their original discussions with the New South Wales Farmers Federation, which were representing their views at peak council—had the same concerns but gave way because growers in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia—although not a majority in quantity producers but a majority in numbers—decided that the minister's model was the better way to go.We now find that the Western Australian and New South Wales growers were looking at a different model altogether. Their instincts were right because—even with the provision, which I will turn to in a minute, that is incorporated in this legislation to give direction to the way the company is run and the undertakings in the memorandum of understanding which underpin the corporate directions—what cannot be overcome is a core flaw in the structure. What everybody has been trying to accommodate is what you do for the wheat grower who has contributed money to the Wheat Industry Fund to give a capital base to the new company. When we get to the point where the company has been set up—it is a private sector grower company and its capital belongs to the wheat growers—what happens if the wheat grower wants to have his or her money back?They have contributed compulsorily up to this point as part of the industry arrangements. But, from the point of handover to a private sector grower corporate model, it is their money to do with as they want. Everybody accepted that there has to be a way of enabling a grower who wants his or her money back to be able to do that. The model the government set up was to issue tradeable shares in the B-class structure, which enables growers to cash in their money by selling their shares to someone else. That is fine if they sell the shares to another wheat grower, because you still have a corporate model owned and run by growers, which was always the objective, but what if the shares are sold to someone who is not a grower? What if the shares are sold, for instance, to an AMP or a National Mutual that thinks it is a good idea to have an investment in the wheat industry, as will certainly happen?That leads you to the point where you have emerging a conflict of interest, because if you are a shareholder as a grower what you are seeking to do out of this whole exercise is to maximise your return as a grower; you want the highest wheat price you can get. If you are an investor of money into the corporate structure, you want the best return you can get on the finance you are providing to the structure. The only way that the structure can pay a better dividend to the people who provide the finance is by paying the grower a lesser price for the wheat. It is an essential conflict of interest that cannot be walked away from, no matter how you try to set it up, even with the conflict of interest paragraph in the bill, which states:Company B will be required to pay for wheat and it is obliged to be managed with the objective of maximising the net return to growers who sell wheat into the pools.In other words, to overcome this potential conflict of interest, the bill sets up in the memorandum of understanding a direction so that everybody who invests money in shares knows that the objective is to provide the growers with the maximum return. The government well understands that the more growers there are who take their money out the more institutions are going to hold shares that are in direct conflict with the growers' return versus the institutional investors' return.What is emerging from the Western Australian growers and, as I have now had confirmed, the New South Wales growers is that they want time to rethink an alternative model which sets up the grower ownership and control separate from the money, and the wheat industry fund money becomes a financial resource. There are other ways of dealing with this. I make it very clear that I am very happy with that part of the arrangement where the company administers the single desk. I am not all that enthusiastic about the review of those arrangements under competition policy in the year 2000 which is prescribed. I am an unabashed supporter of the wheat single desk, and I will not be doing anything to pull that apart. This is not a `no ifs and no buts promise but forget about it' like sugar tariffs and things like that. Let us not get too sexy about some of these things. I am saying very clearly that I am an unabashed supporter of cooperative operations and cooperative national marketing structures. So the single desk is no problem, and having a grower corporate model managing the single desk is no problem.What has changed between 1989 when the WIF was established and now is that there is now a huge pool of capital available in Australia in the form of the superannuation funds and other equity investments. Whereas before the wheat industry had to borrow offshore to find capital—because Australia had such a deficiency of capital, there was a high interest rate regime when all this was established—it was a wise decision at the time to say that the growers would need to protect their debt to equity ratio when they formed their own company by having a capital base established. That is what we did and that is what they have contributed to.However, the situation has changed in the last nine years. There is now a substantial capital pool in Australia and there are people like Mortimer and Greiner wanting to put together the capital pool to underwrite the whole structure. The growers could all have their money back tomorrow because it is no longer necessary. This makes it quite possible to have an alternative structure which manages the single desk, manages the pools and gives all growers equal representation but does not have to find a convoluted way of tying the money into the corporate model.That is the essential difference I am putting forward, and I hope the government members will listen to the wheat constituency which, as late as last week, has taken some very considered professional advice from people who have been involved in setting up modern corporate cooperatives. In fact, one of the advisers to the Western Australian growers, when talking this through with me, was quite surprised to find that I understood this exactly as he did. The reason for that is that a considerable part of my background before coming into parliament was in the cooperative movement, and I understand what you can do with these things. I see the success that the dairy industry has had with a couple of its models, and this particular consultant has actually helped the dairy industry do exactly what the wheat industry now has the chance to do.What I am saying to the government is that the minister has always been wrong to tell us, as he constantly has, that he had the support of the industry. What he has had is the industry squabbling with each other. We have had the New South Wales growers giving it away because they thought everybody else wanted to go in another direction. One lot has been played off against the other. The Western Australian growers have stuck to their guns. They now have a situation where they are all rethinking this, for the reasons that I have now put forward. There is nothing very spectacular about accepting my proposal. To defer the implementation of this for 12 months to allow the growers to consider this model is no big deal. If I can draw a parallel, only a month or so ago the minister announced that, because of the change to the market situation in Asia and therefore further perceived difficulties for the wool stockpile, the government had decided that the handover date of the wool stockpile was being extended. My response to that was that it was a good policy decision. The circumstances have changed and it made sense to extend the government underwriting of the wool stockpile, because we are going to have to manage the industry through changed circumstances.Here I would say that for different reasons the circumstances have changed. The WIF is not the necessary capital underwriting of the wheat industry that we perceived it would be in 1989. The situation has changed and the wheat industry could raise the capital anywhere, because it is a sensible and sound investment, as people like Mortimer and Greiner well understand. I have got to say— and I do not say this to in any way say, `Aren't I smart?'—that when Mortimer and Greiner came to the government and the wool industry six months ago and said, `What about letting us, on behalf of the private sector, provide the capital and move in and buy the stockpile and remove from everybody the onus of having to manage the stockpile in wool?', the collective answer was, `Oh no, we can't do that.' Of course, now we have actually had to defer the arrangements because the situation has deteriorated. Had people with a bit of understanding and vision about this stuff actually embraced what was a very sound recommendation, the fact that the circumstances have changed would not be the problem of the government, it would be the problem of the private sector.There is significant discontent in the wheat industry, as was shown when the first tranche came through. The government majority on the Senate committee went back to the minister and said, `Look, we don't think you have got this right. We will go along with it under sufferance, but we don't think you have got it right and we've got a lot of concerns about it.' Now, that momentum has built—for exactly the reasons I have outlined. I think the government should consider giving support to my proposal to defer those arrangements. As I say, given that only a month or so ago the government deferred the arrangements for the wool industry and the underwriting of its stockpile, it is no big deal to do that.I go to a couple of other issues. On the conflict of interest paragraph within the bill, if it is decided to defeat my proposal, if in the Senate the government is able to secure support for the passage of the legislation, all I am saying is that in five years time we are all going to have to come along and fix this up again because there will be a significant number of wheat growers who will take the opportunity to withdraw their capital. They will be replaced by the Mortimers and Greiners of this world who want to be in there underwriting the wheat fund. By definition, no matter what you have in the memorandum or articles, there will be that conflict of interest and it will have to be resolved, or our next complaint will be that the growers have lost control of their own operation. My view of this is that, if we are going to have to fix it in five years time, let us get it right now.I am not sure where the government is on the question of capital gains in the wheat industry fund. Just to explain briefly, the situation there is that the grower contributions are, as I recall it, in the order of $350 million or $400 million. The fund has actually made a capital gain over time and sits in the order of $550 million now. I apologise to the House if those figures are not spotlessly correct, but it is something of that order. I know that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has told the industry that he regards the capital gain that has been made on those contributions as taxable under the capital gains tax when it is realised in the hands of the industry. I know that the industry was requesting that the government clarify its position about this. I am not sure if there has been an answer to that yet. I have not heard of there being an answer to it, so I suppose the industry is still waiting. But I have to say that I find it a bit rough, because these growers were made by the government of the day to contribute to this WIF and they could at any time have invested that money elsewhere.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Not by us.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—Of course it was the former Labor government that required them to invest in the WIF. I do not have any problems with that. But we are not the ones who have suddenly decided that it is capital gains taxable. You have come into office, and you guys from the National Party are supposed to be the farmers' friends. That is why these people find themselves in such a dilemma with you. No-one ever talked about them paying capital gains tax on the gain in the WIF, and then all of a sudden your Treasurer has let them know that they are up for $60 million or $70 million worth of capital gain when they realise that profit.It was a compulsory contribution to a fund. Had they made those contributions elsewhere and raised the funds in some other way, they would have been able to make all sorts of structural arrangements, the way everybody does, to minimise their capital gains contribution. But they have no choice with this very late announcement by the government. The government has to deal with this. It is not reasonable to just tell these people, `This is the structure you are going to have and, by the way, you are going to have to pay capital gains tax on the gains it has made.' The growers' support for the structure at the time was conditional on a satisfactory answer from the government on this question. It has not been received, as far as I know.Members of the government will find, as they go to check the veracity of what I have said in the House today, that as late as last week significant bodies were rethinking their position now that they have come to understand two things: they have seen a deferment in the wool industry, so they know it is possible to have a deferment; and they have come to better understand the inevitable conflict of interest and, as it is no longer necessary to have their own capital base to underwrite the grower corporate model, why can we not consider the model that has been hugely successful in the dairy industry? Those matters are coming to the fore now. Everybody involved should give the industry a chance to rethink its position. The following amendment gives effect to deferring for one year the implementation of the arrangements under this bill to allow the industry representatives to look at alternative arrangements and be fully satisfied about those arrangements before they are finally enacted. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House calls for the enactment of the proposals to be deferred for one year and the existing arrangements extended for this period so that further consideration can be given by industry representatives to the best arrangements for the industry and so that all parties can be fully satisfied about those arrangements before they are finally enacted":10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.Sitting suspended from 6.26 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:004322Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—As the member for O'Connor, I represent some 4,800 wheat grower locations, the largest by nearly 1,000 of any electorate in Australia. These locations produce 40 per cent of Australia's wheat and approximately 60 per cent of Australia's wheat export. It is wheat exports which are covered by this legislation under the Commonwealth's export power. The domestic wheat market is deregulated and represents an excellent alternative to wheat producers in the high population states, where domestic consumption represents a high, if not the total, percentage of local wheat production. The WA domestic market, by comparison, is approximately three per cent of WA wheat production. My constituents are therefore totally vulnerable to any flaws that might exist in the performance of this legislation in terms of the protection they deserve.This legislation is unique in that, for the first time in my recollection, a government has chosen to give an independent commercial entity an unconditional monopoly to sell and export an entire commodity produced within Australia. It is not unique in the terms of there being an export monopoly for wheat, as this has existed for decades through a fully government controlled statutory authority called the Australian Wheat Board. However, that authority was subject fully to government legislation and ministerial control. Clearly, the commercial entities that have been created in this legislation and some earlier legislation associated with this bill are not subject to such government control. Normally in the commercial sector the discipline that guarantees performance is the marketplace. As an agent selling commodities your client base simply walks away to competitors if the returns you achieve for them are below those provided by other competitors.Wheat growers who, by an accident of geography, are locked into export have no such choice under this legislation. They must sell their wheat through the privatised Australian Wheat Board. Wheat growers in my electorate continue to support the concept of an export monopoly. They are, however, deeply concerned that the structures that this and previous legislation provide afford them inadequate protection both in terms of the returns on their pooling of export wheat, in terms of administrative charges and in terms of their long-term control of this company, which I now choose to call AWB Inc.The suggestion is that, because wheat growers are the sole shareholders under what is to be termed an A-class shareholding, and as they are the sole shareholders who will be able to elect the board of directors of AWB Inc, their control is ultimate. It is equally logical to argue that the shareholders of BHP had total control over that company's board when it decided to purchase Magma Copper in the United States. The shareholders of BHP can sell—and have sold—their shares to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the performance of the board, resulting in the resignation of senior officials and board members on some occasions.Nevertheless, in the case of AWB Inc there is yet to be published AWB Inc's memorandum of articles of association. However, I am reliably informed that they will prescribe the board membership in terms of the qualifications that its members should have. Many of those board members will not be farmers and will not be shareholders of AWB Inc. The period of their appointment is unknown but could be three to five years, and wheat growers will have no day-to-day influence during that period. Unlike politics, it is also of little interest to many professional directors as to whether they are popular with the shareholders or not. The memorandum of articles of association will also provide for a form of preselection of directors and require an independent nominee to obtain 100 signatures from A-class shareholders before they are eligible to stand for election. This is a very substantial burden obviously designed to deter such attempts to join the board. The whole process, consequently, will provide almost dictatorial influence to the chief executive of AWB Inc.As I read the arrangements, the chief executive will be involved in preselecting his or her own board of directors. This is called an election slate, and it is all there hidden away in the documents that are quite frequently hard to get your hands on. If you are going to be the chief executive and you want to put up your own salary and you have already preselected your board, the chances are that your salary will go up. It is also intended to convert the compulsory farmer levy called the wheat industry fund into B-class shares, the holders of which will also have a right to elect some directors at a later date. These shares are also expected to pay a dividend and, at a later date, be traded upon the Australian Stock Exchange.The compulsory wheat industry fund, at two per cent of farm gate value for wheat, has represented a significant financial burden for many wheat growers, actually exceeding their net profit in some cases. Many farmers in my electorate are borrowing money to plant crops and/or are unable to upgrade essential farm machinery whilst having wheat industry fund reserves in excess of $100,000. The only way they can recover their funds is to sell their B-class shares on the Australian Stock Exchange after the projected listing.There will be many other reasons, including the misfortune of family breakdown or drought, that will require the sale of these shares in the future. This raises two issues. Firstly, and unlike the current situation where the Australian Wheat Board operates as a statutory authority and passes on the full benefit of any discounts that it can obtain on interest and those sorts of things, such farmers will actually be charged financial service fees to generate dividends for the B-class shareholders.`B' gets a lot of mention in this particular legislation. The proposal is that there will be a company A, a company B and a company C. Company A is to be the provider of financial services and, as such, will pay dividends to B-class shareholders. Company B is to be the company charged with selling export wheat and company A will be entitled to deal on the domestic market.The interesting thing is that the only way that company A can earn money is to lend it to company B. The money it will lend in the first instance is wheat industry fund money. In other words, farmers will be paying interest on their own money. That, in itself, is all right if they join in and receive dividends on their wheat industry fund or B-class shares, but if for reasons beyond their control they are forced to sell those shares they will be taxed on their performance not only at the interest charges that are incurred by company A but with an additional premium to ensure that a dividend can be paid and, of course, the operating expenses of the new AWB Inc. bureaucracy can be met. Obviously, they will no longer receive any offsetting dividend if they sell their shares.The second problem relates to the purchasers of their shares. These could be competitors to AWB Inc, other major grain traders, family style investors or large financial institutions, who of course are purchasing these shares for the financial return that will be paid. Family investors will, along with these other investors, automatically assume a proprietary interest in the dominant asset of AWB Inc.—that is, the government granted monopoly.Notwithstanding the assurances that might be given in this place, the reality is that people will know that this investment will only make money while it retains a monopoly over export of grain throughout Australia. This legislation guarantees this monopoly to AWB Inc. for five years; it does not, however, terminate that right at that point in time. It will require new legislation to discontinue that monopoly. At this stage of the game, there could be good reason why that should not continue.I draw the attention of the House to the circumstances that could arise if wheat growers do not wish that monopoly right to continue in the hands of AWB Inc. I make the point that, over history, the AWB has been perceived as the source of the guaranteed minimum price, the single desk in all these things, but in fact it was just the body that delivered those gifts from government. The reality is that it is now going to be a private company and it is only one of probably a dozen Australian private companies that could manage an export monopoly. In your state, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, a similar situation arises where the company CSR delivers services to the Queensland Sugar Corporation, but that does not have the arrangements that are being proposed here.Quite clearly, those outside the wheat industry who have purchased shares and received dividends arising from the operations of the monopoly would object strenuously to any action by the parliament to remove this monopoly in the future. The fact that only four members—and only one, me, from the government—have decided to speak on this legislation is evidence of the number of members who might support the wheat growers' request in the future. The rest, however, would be quick to respond to the demands of their investor constituents, who could be spread all over Australia, in demanding the retention of the AWB Inc. monopoly which generates their dividends but which was disadvantageous to wheat growers. The potential for this situation to arise is of great concern to me.The solution to all the issues I have identified is to ensure that this legislation in its own right ensures that the people it captivates do have adequate protection to receive adequate returns for the products they produce. The vehicle available for this purpose in the legislation is called the Wheat Export Authority, WEA.I welcome the amendments which increase wheat grower participation on the board of this body, particularly the positions which will be allocated to those states who contribute the most to export wheat. However, in requesting this increased representation, both Senator Crane from Western Australia and I did so in the context that the powers of the WEA should be better defined so that its board could be effective in protecting the interests of those wheat growers who are obliged to sell their grain through AWB Inc. In this regard, I believe that the WEA should be the agent for the government in issuing all export licences, including this five-year monopoly, and as such be able to do so by adding conditions—for instance, as to the level of net return based on international evidence that AWB Inc. would return each year to wheat growers.I find it ludicrous that the government agency empowered to, as the legislation says, `control the export of wheat' must also knuckle its forehead to AWB Inc. If, for reasons of wheat grower benefit, it wished to license the export of a quantity of wheat larger than one container, it actually has to get their written permission. The body that the legislation says is controlling the export of wheat has to go to the person who has the export monopoly and say, `Can I please send more than one container of wheat out of the country or let somebody else do it because there is a benefit to the wheat industry in so doing?' That is in clause 11 of the amending bill, dealing with subsection 57(3) of the original legislation.Fortunately, this requirement does cease on or after 1 July 2004. At that point the WEA will have more powers as to whom it licenses. Similarly, the WEA appears to have no power to include or exempt certain wheat varieties such as durum from the monopoly. The issue of the rights of wheat growers who produce certain varieties that the AWB refuses to export is unresolved. I trust the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) will tell the parliament how such growers might service available niche export markets for bulk exports, not just single container loads or bags. Clearly, in this situation the WEA should be able to issue an export consent without the written approval of AWB Inc. Put simply, it has happened in the past: the Wheat Board says it does not want to handle certain varieties of wheat, and if you go out and get your own market for it you just simply cannot get it out of the country.My other area of concern relates to the method of electing board members to the Grains Council of Australia, the GCA. At present, only nominees who have established farmer organisations can be members, which disenfranchises all non-members of those organisations, including many who simply cannot afford the cost of membership of those farmer organisations, which frequently runs to thousands of dollars. The Wool Council has addressed this issue recently by creating three positions to be elected by plebiscite of all wool growers, irrespective of their connections with farmer organisations; and considering the importance of the GCA and the operation of this bill, soon to become an act, I consider they should undertake a similar process at the GCA.Due to my continued representations the government has, at the 11th hour, included clause (1)(b) under the heading of powers and functions of the WEA, as a further amendment. That does add somewhat to the responsibilities and the powers of the Wheat Export Authority. The original bill said:The Authority has the following functions:(a) to control the export of wheat from Australia;(b) to monitor nominated company B's performance—that is the exporting company's performance, and this is the new bit—in relation to the export of wheat and to examine and report on the benefits to growers that result from that performance.That at least makes it clear to the WEA that they have a responsibility to report to the parliament. That is the limit of their power. This amendment, whilst clearly charging the WEA to conduct an appropriate supervisory role, still restricts its powers to one of persuasion by reporting its concerns to the government. Based on my long experience in this place and the opportunity for reverse lobbying by the executive of AWB Inc. and its non-wheat growing shareholders of the future, I am not confident of an appropriate government response to any report arising from the WEA. I have already pointed out that there are nine wheat growing electorates in Australia where the wheat growing locations exceed 1,000. That is about the extent of their influence in this place.If AWB Inc. is constantly underperforming in the international marketplace, then wheat growers will be the only losers, as they will continue to pay all the administrative and financial charges that the B-class shareholders and the AWE Inc. bureaucracy demands. I hope my concerns are never realised. However, just as I have promoted them in party forums, I would be wrong not to put them on the record today.I apologise to my constituents for my failure to achieve more, and personally believe their future would be more stable if they elected to undertake their own statewide marketing arrangements in WA through a WA grain pool-Cooperative Bulk Handling consortium. However, I doubt this initiative will be taken and, once this bill passes both houses, it would be very difficult as, were the federal government to approve this arrangement in the future, it clearly would be sued for damages by AWB Inc. for removing its five-year monopoly rights. That is another aspect of this legislation.The reality is that, notwithstanding how poorly AWB Inc. performs, they would argue that they were not and, just as we have discovered with mobile phones, this parliament is locked into a five-year agreement by its own legislation, not by some contract which has conditions put upon it. I am not happy with it, but I have promised my party room not to oppose this legislation, more particularly because the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) did at least assist me with that additional amendment. I tend to agree that there is also no rush. Quite clearly, the AWB as a statutory authority, with or without a loan guarantee, could conduct the business it conducts today. But we will just have to wait and see how all this goes. I repeat: I am not opposing the legislation but I am not at all happy with it.20:20:004326Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has put down his comments on the bill—and in a fair way he has some serious problems with its make-up and has listed those for the parliament to hear—but he says he is going to follow the party line. I think there are a lot of wheat growers in Australia who have serious problems with this Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 .This bill has quite a long history and it is linked to the ongoing development of the Australian Wheat Board, which came about to provide some sort of security during difficult times for wheat growers many years ago. But in making sure that there was a single desk, or one voice, to speak for the growers in export negotiations, it has taken on the role of a monopoly. It seems that agricultural marketing boards were initially established in the early 1900s. Before their advent there is little doubt that private traders and users underpaid growers for their commodities. In an article recently in the Australian Financial Review, Stephen Wyatt revealed that collusive buying practices, particularly by flour millers, triggered the move towards boards. He went on to say that the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1927 set up marketing controls to assist farmers who were perceived to be in a weak bargaining position compared with the buyers of their crops. Farmers were isolated. They did not know what price their produce was trading at in the world market or indeed in the domestic market centre. There was no general legislation to prevent collusive market practice.The Australian Wheat Board was established in 1948 and has existed continuously since then. Its principal function is to control the export and overseas marketing of Australian wheat. Its other functions include domestic trading in wheat and export—but not control—and trade in other grains. Times have changed since its inception, of course. The Trade Practices Act was introduced in 1974, and was extended and then strengthened by the Competition Policy and Reform Act in 1995. Farmers are better informed and have access to modern communications—telephones, faxes, computers and now the Internet—even to the extent of having chat lines to debate the issue of the current changes to the Wheat Board. In fact, their chat is recorded on the home page of the Wheat Board and makes interesting reading for those of us who are interested in getting that up.One at least gets a feeling about the thoughts and aspirations of some of our farm comrades out there. As might be expected, a lot of the discussion is about whether or not it is raining in different parts of Australia. There are also lots of information workshops, and there is excellent potential for passing on information on these sorts of issues. But the discussion also gives a clue about how farmers are thinking on the Wheat Board changes. There does seem to be some concern amongst growers about the structure of the Wheat Board as to whether or not it will satisfy their needs with regard to long-term grower control. The member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), our shadow minister for primary industries, spoke about this earlier today in this debate. In fact, there is a conflict of interest in the dual class share structure which the honourable member for O'Connor mentioned earlier.Some growers see that the existing `grower corporate model' structure contains a conflict between the interests of growers, A-class shareholders, and the interests of investors, B-class shareholders. The growers' interests will be subordinate to those of the investors. As the investors will seek to get the highest return and the highest dividends, it would be in their interests to ensure that the farm gate price is as low as possible. So that is a possibility in the future. The growers' shares will be subsidised by those of the investors. Therefore, if there is some suggestion that the board be privatised, those interests could well be taken offshore and then there would be no control over the price of wheat at all.I found Mr Wyatt's explanation quite interesting in this regard: there are two sides to any monopoly. It can be a buying or a selling monopoly. Marketing boards in Australia generally have both sides of the game sown up. Growers have to sell to the board—termed `vesting' for the buying side of the monopoly—and the board is the only seller of the commodity, both domestically and internationally.In 1989, changes began to occur when the Wheat Board deregulated the Australian domestic wheat market. This set a blueprint for the other boards to give up domestic buying monopolies but retain the international ones; the idea being to trade off control over the domestic market in order to keep control of the export market. It is said that the review assumes that export monopolies actually confer a net benefit on Australia and that an export monopoly does not impact on the domestic market. But that is not, in fact, true. It is the export monopolist that sets up the domestic market. The criticism is that it is a half-hearted attempt to free up the domestic market, but it does not work. More and more people are reaching that conclusion. The reason given for this is that if the monopoly exporter controls the sale of the vast majority of that commodity in the export market, then it must also control the price of that commodity in the market from which the commodity originates. The major seller must be the major buyer. Other buyers will just price against the major. This is what the Australian Wheat Board do: they set the tone for the market.There needs to be some way of making sure that there is grower control in the day-to-day decision making process. It seems that the interests of growers and investors are impossible to reconcile and that ultimately the decision making processes will develop a bias in favour of the principal providers of the capital—namely, the B-class shareholders or investors.No amount of refining or redrafting of the memorandum of the articles of association will provide an adequate solution to this conflict of interest as, at the end of the day, it is not possible to serve two masters. The opposition would prefer to see a different organisation. We would rather see a well structured corporation adopting modern cooperative principles which not only would have a better chance of surviving the single desk review process—which I would certainly support—but also would have better prospects of commercial success and of satisfying grower requirements in a deregulated market. In a deregulated market a cooperative wheat exporting enterprise could be sustained by reason of the strong grower loyalty that could evolve out of grower ownership and control. The member for Burke emphasised the opposition's position on this.I think the amendment to stand aside this legislation for one year so that we can look at this and so that the growers can chat more through the Internet, in meetings and by coming together to workshop this issue is a fine amendment. Everything aside, I think it should be taken on board. The government should take on board what the honourable member for O'Connor said. I think he was very sincere in what he said. He represents a considerable number of wheat growers. Twelve months deferral of this bill would not really be of concern. That is what is really needed at this time. I support the bill being deferred and will certainly do that when it comes to the vote. I ask the government to extend the existing WIF credit guarantees for a further 12 months, as has been suggested in my colleague's amendment. I am sure the many people on the other side of the House who have considered this would like to support the amendment when it comes to the vote.20:31:004328Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—Today is an important occasion for Australia's wheat industry. It is important because the passage of this legislation, the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , will allow Australia's wheat growers to take control of their own destiny. The development of the new commercial arrangements has been a long and complex process and has involved the grains industry in a very extensive and comprehensive way right throughout. There have been some very considerable challenges and hundreds of difficult issues to address, but industry consensus was reached earlier this year with the unanimous support of the Grains Council of Australia for the grower corporate model.I would like to pay credit to the many grains industry leaders at all levels who have contributed to the achievement of a final model. In particular, I wish to mention the work of the past two presidents of the Grains Council of Australia, Jeff Arney and Brendan Stewart. Jeff Arney guided the industry through a difficult and challenging period, and his good nature and diplomacy shone throughout. Brendan Stewart, who is a young Queenslander, has and is displaying great strength, maturity and leadership to the industry. I have no doubt that he will have a great role in the future of rural Australia.I also wish to pay credit to the staff of the Grains Council for their tireless efforts, to the Australian Wheat Board, to its legal and commercial advisers, and to the hardworking people from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy who, along with other members of the Grains Council, have made an enormous contribution to the ongoing development of a model for the future of this great industry. I would like to comment on the remarks made by one participant in this debate, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), both in the media and in this place. He rightly supported the commercialisation of the Australian Wheat Board, particularly when he addressed this matter in this chamber the first time around, but he has since presented information that is quite simply factually incorrect. Likewise, he has put forward arguments in his criticism of the grower corporate model which are not tenable.He has raised concerns, for example, over an apparent conflict between wheat grower and shareholder interests. I can assure the honourable member that the wheat industry would not have unanimously supported the agreed arrangements if this conflict existed. Throughout the memorandum and articles of association of the new Australian Wheat Board there are many requirements for the interests of wheat growers to be held foremost. The primary object of the Australian Wheat Board effectively will be to undertake grain trading to maximise net returns to growers.I should also address the member for Burke's assertion that the industry would prefer a cooperative or composite arrangement. The Grains Council of Australia released a media statement on 20 May which categorically rejected any support for a composite alternative. There were very good reasons for the Grain Council's rejection of a composite alternative, and I am very surprised indeed that the member for Burke has nailed his colours to the mast of a proposal which is not supported by the majority of the industry and which would in fact on any objective analysis fall far short of optimal outcomes.The model being proposed, and apparently being supported by the member for Burke, would cost wheat growers many millions of dollars of their hard earned investments.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Rubbish!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—With great respect, since you interject, I simply say to you that I see no evidence that you have examined this matter in any detail at all and I cannot see that you really have a valuable contribution to make to this debate.Under this grower corporate model, the B-class shares of a company will be listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, thereby allowing growers to access their equity at its maximum value, if they so choose. Some growers personally will have $100,000 or $200,000, and possibly even more, in equity, but under the composite type proposal alluded to by the member for Burke wheat growers' equity value would be much less than under the grower corporate model approach. I strongly contend that, given that this is growers' money—they have been contributing to it ever since 1989—they ought to be able to make the choice to access their money if and when they wish without restriction and without devaluation, which is the effective outcome of a composite model or the cooperative model.There are a number of examples which I could put forward to reinforce why growers should be able to make their own financial choices. Firstly, and not an uncommon situation, a grower might have, for example, $100,000 tied up in the wheat industry fund in equity, yet at the same time find himself in a situation where he has to borrow $100,000 to put his crop in. Seasons are often irregular in the bush. People do need access to that sort of equity from time to time. It would be an absurdity if it were not able to be freely accessed.The grower ought to be able to make the choice of what to do with his or her own money. The grower corporate model will allow the wheat grower to sell some or all of his or her shares to gain premium value for those shares and to reinvest in his or her farm business or family or elsewhere. If growers do this under the model that the government and the working party and the grains industry have negotiated, they will not lose control of the AWB.Another example is the case of a wheat grower having a considerable investment in AWB shares and wanting to purchase the property next door when it comes up for sale. It might be the only chance the farmer has to expand his or her wheat growing operation so as to achieve, for example, a greater economy of scale. He or she might need the money in a hurry. Alternatively, a grower may have three teenage children who are about to enter boarding school or university and may, as a result, find short-term financial demands on the family can best be met by accessing their investment in WIF.The ability of the farmer to access part or all of his or her wheat industry fund equity at its maximum value may very well be a determining factor in whether he or she is able to secure the best advantages for the family, the children or whatever it happens to be. Alternatively, the farmer may wish to reinvest the money off-farm to diversify the family security to allow the farm business to better withstand commodity price fluctuation—something we would support. But the proposal from the member for Burke, it must be clearly understood, would diminish those opportunities.The coalition government supports the right of wheat growers to make the decisions which affect their own industry and their own finances, and I believe very strongly that, since we live in a free country, that is therefore the only appropriate way to go. Discounting the worth of grower equity from its maximum value does not make commercial sense. It can be arranged in a way that does not cost growers control over their own industry. I repeat the point I made earlier: the growers and the working party would not have agreed to a model which compromised them in this regard.In my view, there is a real question here not only of commercial commonsense but also of equity to wheat growers and their families. I believe that the very-late-in-the-piece opposition that has emerged from one or two opposite demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of this model and what is being proposed but also a lack of concern for rural people.The opposition spokesman has stated that he believes the government should extend the underwriting of first advance payments for an extra year, and I wonder whether in fact that would be his policy going into the next election. I certainly wonder whether it would be the Labor Party's policy because it has not been up until today.Back in 1989 the then Labor government introduced the levy for the wheat industry fund to `generate a capital base for financing the AWB's marketing activities'. When the government guarantee expires next year, the fund will have over $600 million in it. It has been agreed by the AWB, independent financial consultants and the grains industry that that is more than enough for underwriting purposes, which begs the question: why on earth would the member for Burke want to extend the government guarantee when the industry has more than sufficient to do the job? Why on earth—in terms of other questions that might be asked—would he want the AWB to go into next year's national competition policy review as a far from fully commercial operation which is under the financial and paternal wing of government and unable to demonstrate a separation of the regulatory and commercial aspects of the export monopoly?Surely he knows—at least I hope he knows—that under these circumstances the recommendation from the national competition policy review is likely to be less favourable to the single desk arrangements of the AWB. Growers have made it absolutely plain throughout this whole process that their prime objective is to secure the future of the single desk. They ought to remember that the last Labor minister for primary industries was plainly less than committed to that single desk and, indeed, was caught quite red-handed a couple of times committing himself to the single desk to growers but telling other people in the industry that it would shortly go. Those who think that playing politics with this might somehow advance their interest might just remember that. It needs to be very clearly put on the table that, if Labor are going to play cheap politics with this, they will put me in a position where I will be telling Australia's 50,000 or so wheat growers that they are playing lightly with their No. 1 objective, which is the retention of the single desk.I want to return to something I alluded to a moment ago, and that is to point out that the proposal discussed by the member for Burke is also commercially inferior to the grower corporate model. The composite type model delivers a lower capital liquidity, and this would be reflected in the value of the company as a whole. When the company went to borrow its annual funding requirement of between $3 billion and $4 billion—$3,000 million to $4,000 million—financial institutions lending the money would not look positively at those cooperative arrangements that are now being thrown around by the member for Burke. Because the B-class shares are redeemable, they would not be treated as permanent capital by lenders, and this would be reflected in the repayment conditions and risk margins attached to any deal—that is to say, the cost would be reflected in the pool price of wheat.A great deal of what has been discussed and negotiated and worked through time and time again between the working party and the consultants is how to maximise the pool price of wheat. It must be understood that that is one of the primary objectives—a very understandable primary objective—of the industry in this whole debate, and yet again that appears to be simply not understood by those opposite.To put that in very simple words: were we to go along with the composite model that a minority are still pursuing, the value of the wheat growers' company would be reduced. The value of the capital base of AWB would be lower—that is to say, the value of each wheat grower's personal equity would be reduced. The ability of the company to maintain adequate first payments could well be compromised and would certainly not be maximised. The ability of the company to deliver the most optimal wheat prices to growers would almost certainly be compromised and most certainly would not be maximised. Furthermore, the composite model is structured in such a way that it would be more difficult to pass the national competition policy review.I again emphasise that the member for Burke has demonstrated today and over the last few days that he does not have an understanding of the wheat industry restructure. He does not have a compassionate view towards the real needs and desires of farmers. He apparently does not respect the right of farmers to unfettered access to their personal investment, which is rightfully theirs and which the coalition, and I in particular, have been very keen to emphasise in recent years.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—They put money into the fund.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That is right—two per cent every year creamed off since Kerin was minister.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Read my speech and you will understand it. I understand it better than you do. Tell them about the capital gains tax and the $60 million.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You go back and have a look at the transcript of what the Chairman of the Grains Council of Australia said today. You do not understand the wheat industry. It is perfectly obvious that you do not understand this industry.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Talk about diminishing their returns.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You have just demonstrated again that you do not understand it. They only pay capital gains tax. They do not pay capital gains tax unless they sell their shares.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—They hear you talking about maintaining the value of their shares. If they sell their shares you are going to capital gains tax them. What a terrible thing to do to them.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—It is a perfectly fair and legitimate outcome.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You have just demonstrated it again. Go and read your words carefully tomorrow. You do not understand what you are talking about.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I know exactly what you have done.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You do not. You obviously do not; your words condemn you. I am sorry to have to say to you that you have just demonstrated that you do not understand how this works. Until you do I suggest—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Tell me again. Of course I understand. 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You do not; it is as simple as that.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Tell me how they avoid capital gains tax.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—By not selling their shares.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—So you are talking about giving a grower back his money and now you are saying that if he doesn't sell his shares and doesn't take his money then he will not have to pay CGT. If he takes his money he is up for CGT.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—If he sells his shares. See, you do not understand. There is no tax on conversion. Are you still with me?CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Once he sells his shares.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—If he chooses not to sell his shares then he will pay no capital gains tax. If he chooses to sell his shares, he has a very fair and equitable set of arrangements in place.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What a terrible rip-off—compulsory contributions.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That is not a rip-off. I challenge you to commit yourself to a more generous arrangement as an alternative government.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—You've creamed them, mate. I understand you.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—No, that is wrong. The people I have met and everyone that my leader, Mr Fischer, has met have had this explained to them and they have said, as wheat growers, they accept that it is entirely fair.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—That is not what they say to us.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I will be very interested to see whether you can extract a more generous arrangement and then I will hold you to it, if you are ever to be in government, because what they are having put to them is a very fair and generous arrangement.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Oh, no, we have heard it all. You have heard what the Grains Council had to say about you today. The Grains Council made it quite obvious what they believe. You do not understand what you are talking about.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—You have demonstrated you don't understand what I'm talking about.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—No, I do not understand what you are talking about because it is gobbledegook. You are putting the industry's future at risk.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—No I'm not.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Yes you are. You go and argue it with the Grains Council of Australia. The Grains Council understands full well that you are not in a situation to be able to contribute usefully to this debate because you have not followed it and you have not understood it.The fact is that, after two years of comprehensive research, consultation and debate, the Grains Council of Australia, which is made up of senior representatives of each wheat growing state, including Western Australia, unanimously endorsed these arrangements only a matter of months ago. The unfortunate thing is that we are not getting an intelligent contribution to this debate from the member opposite. It really ought to be of great embarrassment to the Labor Party to have a spokesman who publicly makes statements like this—and this is quoted from a radio interview he did on ABC Radio last week:A better way to do it is to separate the money from the corporate structure and simply have a corporate structure. Give the growers back their funds and allow them to form it into a coupon on a debt that is owed by the company.When the managing director of the AWB goes to a financial institution to borrow $3-4 billion to purchase its wheat they'll ask him, `What are you borrowing this money against? What capital does your company have?' And the Wheat Board's answer will be—can you cop this—`I've got a cardboard box full of debt coupons.'Good grief! But don't worry, Mr Bank Manager. They will say, `The member for Burke says it is okay because we need to separate the money from the corporate structure and we have done exactly what he told us to do.'This issue is far too important for the opposition to play petty politics with. The member for Burke has demonstrated an extraordinarily confused misunderstanding of commerce and finance matters. On the ABC's Country Hour today it was reported that the member for Burke's views were met with `anger and disbelief' by the grains industry. Mr Brendan Stewart, the President of the Grains Council of Australia, said:Mr O'Keefe shouldn't be playing politics with people's livelihoods.I urge the House to support this legislation in full and the Senate to pass the bill without amendment, without delay. As a matter of urgency the industry needs to put in place the new arrangements so that it is in a position to maximise the interests of growers with a proven track record before the financial sector when it is due to take over control of its own affairs. That is precisely the outcome that the previous government was essentially working towards. For them now to jeopardise that would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and stupidity. It would be an injustice against a major Australian export industry. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr O'Keefe's amendment) stand part of the question.20:54:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly)84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andren, P. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.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. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.Hawker, D. P. M. Lee, M. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Moore, J. C. Evans, G. J.Smith, W. L. Crean, S. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4334Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:59:004334Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—by leave—I move revised government amendments Nos 1 to 7 as circulated:(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (b), add "and examine and report on the benefits to growers that result from that performance".(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (lines 6 to 9), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) The Authority consists of the following members: (a) a Chairperson; (b) 2 members who have been nominated by the Grains Council; (c) a government member; (d) one other member. (1A) One of the members referred to in paragraph (1)(b) must be a person who is ordinarily resident, at the time of appointment, in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or Tasmania. The other must be a person who is ordinarily resident, at the time of appointment, in Western Australia or South Australia. (1B) The appointment of a member referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is not ineffective, and is not to be questioned, on the ground of a defect or irregularity in connection with the member's nomination or appointment.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (after line 12), at the end of section 6, add:(4) The performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, by the Authority is not affected by a vacancy or vacancies in its membership.(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (line 17), omit "2 members", substitute "3 members".(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 14 (lines 26 to 29), omit subsection (6), substitute:(6) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 , the following things are to be regarded as specified in this section and specifically authorised by this section: (a) the export of wheat by nominated company B; (b) anything that is done by nominated company B under this section or for the purposes of this section.(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 15 (line 12), omit "must be reasonable, and".(7) Schedule 1, item 23, page 16 (line 16), omit "$5 million", substitute "$6 million".I present a revised supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. The proposed main amendments to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 relate to a minor change to increase the membership of the Wheat Export Authority in response to representations to the government after the bill became available for public scrutiny. Technical amendments are also being made to clarify the exemption of the pooling company from part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and payment arrangements for wheat purchased for the pools.The Wheat Export Authority will be established under provisions in the bill to control wheat exports and account to parliament and industry on the export monopoly arrangements after the conversion of the Australian Wheat Board to a grower owned company on 1 July 1999.The proposed amendments ensure that the Wheat Export Authority will include separate members from Western Australia or South Australia, on the one hand, and the eastern states, on the other, nominated by the Grains Council of Australia. This recognises that Western Australia accounts for the majority of wheat exports from Australia.The proposed appointment of an additional independent member to the Wheat Export Authority will provide for the membership to comprise the necessary balance of skills and expertise to enable it to operate in the national as well as growers' interests.The technical amendment to the trade practices exemption already in the bill is needed to ensure that specific activities of the pooling subsidiary, company B, in exporting wheat under the monopoly should be exempt from part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The proposed amendment regarding the purchasing of wheat by company B for pooling will ensure that the price paid for such wheat will relate to the net pool return for that wheat. The proposed amendment regarding the reporting requirements of the Wheat Export Authority clarifies the importance of ensuring that the authority continues to monitor the net benefits of the export monopoly to the industry.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4335Bill (on motion by Mr Anderson)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4335r5064335Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Downer:That the bill be now read a second time.21:03:004335Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 will give effect to Australia's obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the CTBT, and will provide a legislative basis for national implementation. I wish to make a few remarks tonight about this legislation before I turn my attention to the crisis arising from India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests.This bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. The objective of the CTBT has been pursued by Australian governments for a very long time—that is, a total global ban on nuclear weapons tests and all other nuclear explosions in all environments and for all time. Australia was, of course, the site of 12 British nuclear tests at the Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga in the 1950s. These nuclear explosions and the many so-called `minor trials' have left enduring scars on our land and lingering health concerns for the thousands of Australian and British veterans who participated.In 1963, Australia was one of the first non-nuclear weapon states to sign and ratify the partial test ban treaty banning nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and in the oceans. In the early 1970s Australia went on to lead regional condemnation of France's nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Negotiation of the CTBT was a major diplomatic priority for Labor in government as part of our activist approach to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues. This approach was underpinned by both the goal of achieving a nuclear weapon free world and a hard-headed assessment of Australia's security interests. As DFAT's National interest statement on the CTBT rightly states:An effective treaty is important to Australia's national security interests and for global security. In particular, Australia has a strong security interest in ensuring that nuclear weapons are not acquired by countries which could use them against Australia. The CTBT will act as a solid barrier to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and imposes severe constraints on the qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weapon designs. By furthering the twin goals of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, the CTBT strengthens the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which remains the cornerstone of international nuclear security arrangements, and hence Australia's security in this field.In the 1980s and the early 1990s, Australia pushed long and hard to open negotiations for a CTBT in the conference on disarmament in Geneva. These negotiations eventually began in January 1994 and they continued until August 1996.Australia was a central player in this process. Australia's technical experts helped develop the stringent CTBT verification regime. Our diplomats made key contributions to the text of the draft treaty, especially article 1 setting out the basic obligations of state parties never to carry out nuclear test explosions or any other nuclear explosion in any environment. Each party state further undertakes to refrain from causing, encouraging or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion. This is an Australian text, and it is at the very heart of the agreement.In March 1996, on the eve of the last federal election, Australia played a vital role in pushing the conference on disarmament into the endgame of the negotiations by tabling a complete model treaty text as an aid to identifying the key remaining points of difference and ways for their resolution. Later, when India withheld the consensus necessary for the conference on disarmament to transmit the draft treaty text to the UN General Assembly for endorsement, Australia took the treaty direct to the United Nations in New York, and an Australian-drafted resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly on 10 September 1996. Australia signed two weeks later, and passage of this CTBT bill is now required before ratification and national implementation can proceed. Australia is, after all, one of 44 countries designated in the treaty whose ratification is required for the CTBT to enter into force.Clause 8 of the bill makes a person `who causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion' guilty of an offence with a penalty of imprisonment for life. This clause implements the basic prohibition of the treaty. Clause 9 provides for the extraterritorial application of this offence. The CTBT does not explicitly define what constitutes a nuclear explosion; nor does the bill. This was a very difficult aspect of the CTBT negotiations, with much argument over the precise scope of the treaty; that is to say, whether or not the CTBT would ban so-called subcritical nuclear experiments. I do not see any advantage in reopening this issue in tonight's debate. In any case, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986 contains a definition of what constitutes a nuclear explosive device, which would be relevant to any argument about the precise activity prohibited by the new legislation.The language contained in clause 8 of the CTBT bill is very similar to that used in the United Kingdom's Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998. The opposition has been advised by DFAT that the legal definition of `causes a nuclear weapon test explosion' would extend to actions which facilitated or in any way assisted the carrying out of a nuclear test, even if the person in question did not actually push the button.Consequently, the basic offence established by the legislation before us extends to cover any participation by an Australian citizen in a nuclear test conducted by another country. To take a hypothetical example, an Australian citizen who participated in or otherwise assisted with the carrying out of a nuclear test by India or Pakistan would be guilty of an offence under this legislation. In any case, such a possibility—hopefully, a very remote possibility—is already covered by section 13 of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986, which makes it an offence to do:any act or thing to facilitate . . . testing by any person (including a foreign country) of a nuclear explosive device (whether inside or outside Australia).That legislation provides for a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment.This bill empowers the Commonwealth to facilitate verification of compliance with the CTBT's provisions, including the establishment and operation of 21 Australian monitoring stations as part of the international network of more than 300 seismic and other monitoring facilities around the world. Australia's facilities will assist in the detection and identification of any nuclear explosion prohibited by the treaty. By virtue of Australia's geography, we will have the third largest number of monitoring facilities, after the United States and Russia. I repeat: we will be third only after the United States and Russia.Australia is also under an obligation to allow the CTBT Organisation inspectors, pursuant to article IV of the treaty, to inspect any place in Australia or our external territories to resolve any questions concerning compliance with article I of the treaty. The bill provides comprehensive powers for compliance arrangements, including the right for inspectors to collect and remove samples and the right to undertake drilling. Access to facilities by inspectors for on-site inspections is by consent of the occupier or by warrant issued by a magistrate.These provisions are modelled on those contained in other non-proliferation related legislation: the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994. Tonight's bill will continue Australia's practice of adhering to the highest standards of compliance with international non-proliferation obligations.As I mentioned earlier, the entry into force provisions of the CTBT, article XIV, provide that ratification by all 44 designated states is required before the treaty comes into operation. This list includes the five declared nuclear weapon states—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China—and the three so-called threshold states: India, Pakistan and Israel. Of the 44 states listed in the entry into force provisions, India, Pakistan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have not yet signed the CTBT. And as everyone knows, India and Pakistan have between them just conducted no fewer than 11 nuclear tests in the space of little more than two weeks—the most intense burst of nuclear testing since the lead-up to entry into force of the partial test ban treaty, all of 35 years ago. This is the worst break-out for 35 years.Carried out in total defiance of the overwhelming international consensus against further nuclear testing, the actions of India and Pakistan have attracted strong condemnation, including from both sides of the political mainstream in this country. India's open declaration of a thermonuclear weapon capability and the declared intention of both India and Pakistan to proceed with weaponisation of their nuclear capabilities has sent the most appalling signal to other states interested in acquiring nuclear weapons.It is a matter of record that I referred to India's nuclear tests as an outrageous act of nuclear bastardry. The same can be said of Pakistan's latest test, which appears to have been carried out for no better reason than that of levelling the nuclear test score with India. All sides of politics in this country have called on India and Pakistan to join the global consensus against nuclear testing and to sign the CTBT without delay.I earnestly hope that both India and Pakistan will soon see the absolute folly of their actions; though, for the moment at least, rabid and extreme nationalism appears to be the dominant theme of public expression in both New Delhi and Islamabad. India and Pakistan are no longer so-called nuclear threshold states; they are now self-declared nuclear weapon states. But they should be accorded no respect and they should be accorded no status whatsoever. They should be treated for what they are—nuclear pariahs.Tonight, I would like to draw attention to an important aspect of the situation in South Asia that has been largely submerged in the press coverage of the nuclear tests—that is, the acquisition by both India and Pakistan of ballistic missiles which, together with development of the nuclear warheads they will carry, introduce a new and highly destabilising element into the strategic equation in South Asia. Ballistic missiles are, of course, not new. It is more than half a century since the first long-range ballistic missile, the German V2, brought death and destruction to the city of London. Such weapons hold great attraction to countries eager to acquire symbols of military power and prestige and reliable delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction.India's ballistic missiles are well known: the Prithvi, a relatively short-range missile but more than adequate to reach Islamabad; and the intermediate range Agni, long thought to be directed toward China. India now appears determined to arm both missiles with nuclear weapons to match Pakistan's new intermediate range missile, the Ghauri, which was tested last April. Indeed, although the nuclear intentions of the new Indian government were never much in doubt, Pakistan's missile tests last April may well have precipitated the timing of India's nuclear tests. Pakistan too has declared its intention to equip its new 1,100-kilometre range missile, probably developed with Chinese or North Korean assistance, with its own nuclear warhead.We now face a situation where India and Pakistan will face each other with nuclear missile forces on high alert, ready at a moment's notice to respond to an attack or even a perceived threat of attack. With flight times to their likely targets of only a few minutes, there will be no time for second thoughts, no time for diplomacy and not even time for a telephone call to avert disaster. This is the new strategic balance in South Asia—a balance of two deadly adversaries, both infected with the virus of extreme nationalism, locked in a longstanding territorial dispute and armed to the teeth with nuclear ballistic missiles, each only a brief flight from the other's capital. Unless the international community can take concerted action, not only to force India and Pakistan to desist from further nuclear tests but to stop the development of their ballistic missile forces, South Asia will move ever closer to the brink of absolute disaster.Alongside the CTBT and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, there is clearly an urgent need to strengthen multilateral constraints on the supply of ballistic missile technology. We need to significantly upgrade the missile technology control regime, the MTCR, the informal missile non-proliferation forum of which Australia has been a member for some years. The international community also needs to look very seriously at negotiating multilateral constraints on the testing and development of ballistic missiles. The United States and Russia have, of course, already concluded a number of bilateral agreements which in various ways limit their missile forces, including a ban on all intermediate range missiles and an agreement to give bilateral notification of ballistic missile test launches.In 1995 Australia canvassed the possibility of a multilateral ban on ballistic missile tests with our partners in the MTCR and, failing that, negotiation of a ballistic missile launch notification regime as a confidence building measure. Some MTCR countries were enthusiastic; others less so. Let me say to the House tonight that, in the context of the nuclear crisis in South Asia, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade could very usefully resurrect these proposals and explore the possibilities for their further progress.In question time today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) referred to the longstanding Australian objective of negotiating a multilateral convention to cut off the production of fissile material as the next step to building the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. This is an important objective that Labor supports, and supports absolutely. Clearly, however, the situation in South Asia, and in the Middle East as well, confirms that stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires work across a wide range of fronts. We need to make progress on the cut-off convention, but we also need to significantly strengthen international constraints on ballistic missile proliferation. For our part, Australia has a strong interest in ensuring that our immediate region remains free not only of weapons of mass destruction but also of long-range ballistic missiles as a technology which can very significantly change our strategic circumstances.Efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are an area of foreign and strategic policy characterised by strong bipartisan support. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Labor supports this bill. We look forward to the negotiation of further measures which will both enhance our national security and move the international community toward the objective that we all share: a world free of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; a world free of the shadow of the mushroom cloud.21:21:004338Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—On occasions I have been known to disagree with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), but I have to say I agree with almost every word of that speech, and the government agrees with a strong bipartisan approach in terms of this piece of legislation, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 , and indeed the broader CTBT. I refer members back to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) said during question time today. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has referred to the special session within the conference for disarmament in Geneva commencing tomorrow, and in particular to the foreign minister's reference to the proposed fissile material cut-off treaty.If we go back to early February, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed the conference on disarmament in Geneva, he made the point that the two priorities at that stage for Australia were, firstly, the banning of anti-personnel land mines—we will not get into that issue this evening other than to say once again that it is an international tragedy which has to be corrected—and, secondly, that we would be pushing towards a treaty for the fissile material cut-off. That has been reiterated by the tragedy of South Asia in the last couple of weeks.I agree with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith that this whole situation is not about security worries in South Asia; it is all about rampant nationalism. India stands condemned. One could argue quite cogently that, with the political instability that has existed in India for many months, the tests were designed to appease the domestic requirements of many millions in that country. As a result, it has created some problems with Pakistan. Understandably for some—although I do not agree with it myself—that has pushed Pakistan into the situation of the last few days.The comprehensive test ban treaty marks an historic milestone in the efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and to build a safer world. By banning all nuclear explosions the CTBT aims, firstly, to constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons; secondly, to end the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons; thirdly, to contribute to the prevention of nuclear proliferation and the process of nuclear disarmament and finally; and, finally and most importantly, to strengthen international peace and security.The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith referred to a section from the national interest analysis which has been produced and which, in terms of the ratification process, is part of the treaty. The national interest analysis is being referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which I chair. I want to quote a section from the national interest analysis which the honourable member read out because I think it is absolutely critical to an understanding of this whole problem:An effective CTBT is important to Australia's national security interests and for global security. In particular, Australia has a strong security interest in ensuring that nuclear weapons are not acquired by countries which could use them against Australia. The CTBT will act as a solid barrier to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and imposes severe constraints on the qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weapons designs. By furthering the twin goals of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, the CTBT strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which remains the cornerstone of international security arrangements, and hence Australia's security in this field.This is an absolutely critical excerpt from that national interest analysis, and I commend the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith for drawing it to the attention of the House.I also want to make some comments about the role that has been played by both sides in terms of the CTBT. As the member indicated, the previous government played a leading role in the lead-up to the March 1994 negotiations and onwards until the early days of 1996. I am sure that the present Minister for Foreign Affairs would not mind if I gave due credit to the then Senator Evans for the role that he played in the development of that CTBT text. Since that time the present Minister for Foreign Affairs has been a key player in the whole process. In September of 1996 it was his personal intervention in the General Assembly which enabled the CTBT text to be developed to the extent that it has been. He attracted the congratulations of US President Clinton for the role that he played in developing that final text.This legislation does four things: it creates an offence to cause a nuclear test or explosion, it extends the offence to Australian citizens operating outside of Australia, it implements the verification procedures, including on-site inspections, and it establishes the Australian Comprehensive Test-Ban Office. That office will have strong links with the CTBTO in Vienna, which is the central focus of CTBT operations through the mechanisms of the United Nations. I am sure the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith would want to join with me before he leaves the House in wishing our diplomats the best of luck, whether it be Penny Wensley in New York in terms of what may be proceeding there, John Campbell in Geneva in terms of the conference on disarmament or Lance Joseph in Vienna in terms of the CTBT office.Without getting into the detail, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties looks forward to further consideration of the CTBT prior to ratification. In fact, as a result of what has happened in Pakistan and India, I have reconvened the public hearing of that committee tomorrow morning. We will be looking once again at the CTBT in the light of Pakistan's moves. It is rather fortuitous that, in the same list of treaties that was referred to my committee, there is an investment protection agreement which, once again, we will look at in the light of what has happened in Pakistan in the last few days.With those brief comments, I want to commend this legislation to the House. We are very appreciative of the strong bipartisan support from the opposition in correcting what, if we do not watch it, will be a problem for not only South Asia but also for all mankind throughout the world. I am sure none of us want that to happen. I commend the bill to the House.21:30:004340Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I welcome the tone in which this debate has been conducted. It is an opportunity for both sides of the parliament to respect the achievements that each have contributed in their way to the making of this legislation. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) set out the record of the former Labor government and its substantial achievements. In giving credit in relation to this matter, I am sure the work of Gareth Evans would be respected by all sides of the House.There is no doubt in my mind that the world is now a substantially more dangerous place as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan. That might be thought to be a truism and might be thought simply to be a piece of self-evident rhetoric, but it does have domestic consequences. It has domestic consequences because much that we still do in Australia gives mixed messages about where we stand regarding the nuclear cycle. That is particularly the case with regard to the stance of the present government with respect to the nuclear industry.The Australian Labor Party while in office operated a three mines policy—that is, it recognised that existing uranium producers would be allowed to continue—but it was responsive to concerns in the Australian community not only about the threats to human health and the local environment that mining and milling of uranium posed but also about the generation of raw materials which are useable for nuclear weapons manufacture and which demand the enforcement of effective controls against diversion and which also challenge the global community in ways which only now are becoming so obvious.There are some who appear to be far too sanguine about these threats, and I instance the editorial of today's Financial Review which I regard as a singularly ill-judged comment in respect of this issue. In respect of those two tests the Financial Review said:. . . the nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and India may not necessarily be such a dangerous and destabilising development for South Asia.It further stated:If anything, nuclear weapons have contributed significantly to world peace.It continued in this vein, arguing:Though there is no established causal relationship between nuclear deterrence and peace, there is certainly a strong correlation between the two.If that piece of fatuous logic were to be carried to its logical consequence, then the world would be much safer by giving Saddam Hussein the facilities to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. The world would be much happier, were that the case, if we released those controls—the existing safeguards—on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The argument that stability in a global context is enhanced by the wider access to nations having the capacity to develop and to utilise nuclear weapons is such an appalling misjudgment that it demands comment in this House.There are some issues where one might expect there to be a little sympathy for countries such as India and Pakistan—not sympathy regarding their actions but sympathy in relation to what they would perceive from their point of view are the double standards that others impose upon them. They would see that some, such as the Financial Review and other commentators, have regarded possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of the `big five' as contributing to global stability while arguing that the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of other nations diminishes the likelihood of stability and international peace. That, at best, I think can be described as an unfortunately Eurocentric or first World view of where the balance of peace ought lie.There is no case to be made for the fact that the world is a safer place because a number of nations possess nuclear weapons. The history of the world over the last 50 years has been one of continual sporadic outbreaks of significant war. The possession of nuclear weapons by the big five has not prevented major conflicts which have had significant regional and international consequences. One only needs to look at the disintegration of countries within Africa, the civil wars that have existed in Europe, the conflicts that occurred in Vietnam, to give the lie to the simplistic idea that the possession of nuclear weapons by a group of nations who in some sense can act as the international policemen gives a guarantee of peace.This analysis underpins the stance of the former Labor government when, whilst building on the treaty to prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons, also introduced into the international dialogue discussion of the total abolition of nuclear weapons through the Canberra Commission on Disarmament that was sponsored by the previous Labor government. It also underlies the work of the international community which is seeking to eliminate stockpiles of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction which have no place in warfare. I note the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), who carried through the work of the former government in relation to landmine issues and secured a comprehensive agreement to ban the use of landmines.All these are important initiatives which go to eliminating from arsenals of the global community weapons which give rise to the possibility of such destructive behaviour that we as a civilised community rebel against. It cannot be the case that the possession of nuclear weapons is plausibly seen as a guarantor of peace. The instances of testing by India and Pakistan show clearly how simple it is for countries which at present may wish to adhere to nominal agreements that they will not develop nuclear weapons to move beyond that.What is the size of the nuclear club now? We know that two nations have emerged from the covert possession of that capacity: India and Pakistan. What other nations possess that covert capacity? Some, I think, would argue that Israel is certainly amongst that group of nations; others have suggested that South Africa may be. I do not wish to speculate, but it is certain that for some time there have been more than five nations with that capacity.With a growing acceptance in the reality of international politics that those weapons do exist, so too the international community must develop a growing response not merely to limit the testing of nuclear weapons but to move to their ultimate abolition as weapons of war. As long as those other nations can look to the big five—and now potentially the big seven—developing and refining their nuclear capacities and enhancing their stature as nations having possession of that capacity, that power and that authority that flows from it, so too will others seek some form of equivalence.It is not too strong to say that there is also now a potential trade in fugitive nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union. When the former Soviet Union broke into its now constituent nations, that nuclear arsenal was intended to be possessed by the larger Russian state. But those weapons still remain—now in sovereign territories—outside Russia, and there is no little evidence emerging that some of those materials are beginning to be the subject of diversion. So we are now seeing a world which is increasingly unsafe; a world in which those who are concerned to prevent catastrophic events in the international scene have greater reason for concern.Even if it were the case—and I do not accept it—that possession of nuclear weapons by a handful of states has prevented the wholesale hostilities between large empire nations and that the consequence of sporadic civil and regional wars were increased as a consequence of that, one really needs to undertake some kind of serious risk analysis. The risk analysis I would put to this House is as follows: assuming that you do have a greater capacity for sporadic, cross-border, minor wars—what do you lay against that, against the possibility of a nuclear contagion being set loose by a country that develops and uses nuclear weapons and plunges its region, and potentially the globe, into a nuclear winter?It certainly is a tragedy whenever conflict emerges, whenever violence is sought as a recourse to human activity and conflict. But it is more than a tragedy if that conflict is manifested by the use of those kinds of weapons of mass destruction. They can set at risk not merely the survival of the government but the survival of whole regions, continents and, potentially, the stability of the global environment. An article that was written, surprisingly, by the Sunday Mail was much more sensible in its reflection on the Indian-Pakistan circumstance, saying:We now face the chilling scenario of the sabre-rattling between these two arch antagonists developing into a nuclear war which would be almost impossible to confine to the region.An article in the Canberra Times stated:The horror of a nuclear exchange would not be confined to the sub-continent. The Chernobyl disaster showed just how extensive nuclear fallout can be, even from a site where remedial action is undertaken almost immediately. A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would bring a different order of fallout as well as terribly destructive changes to weather patterns, particularly in the northern hemisphere.The combatants themselves would, of course, be devastated, with large areas virtually inhabitable.The article concluded:Just when it seemed the nuclear terror was behind us forever, those who returned it to centre stage will not easily be forgiven.But I do not share the views of the editorialist of the Financial Review . I think they are irresponsible and serve their readership very poorly by their platitudinous, relaxed and comfortable attitude to the expansion of the nuclear club by two new members who are nations with histories of enmity and whose peoples have responded to the explosions with outbursts of unconstrained nationalism and passions of a kind which foreshadow very poorly the possibilities that may emerge.On this issue the Australian Labor Party takes on a position which is strong, consistent and definitive. We have argued consistently that we should seek to restrain reliance upon nuclear weapons, firstly, by banning their proliferation and setting a framework in place which would be the basis for their ultimate removal as weapons of war.Second, we have put in place in our platform a commitment that no new uranium mines will be opened after our return to government. That conflicts with this administration which, since its election, has sought the helter skelter development of nuclear industries. This government has been urging the expansion of this industry to the sacrifice of all other considerations, including that of the environment.Before the last federal election, when the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was asked on a national television program about his views regarding the possibility of mining uranium at Jabiluka, which is a site excised from but inside the Kakadu world heritage area, the Prime Minister said, `I would have thought that environmental concerns alone would rule it out.' Acting no doubt upon that assurance, the Australian people would have been relaxed about the prospect of this government coming to office and not proceeding with that particular proposal.But within days of coming to office the tone was changing and within months the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, had given the green light to this government's approval of uranium mining at Jabiluka, notwithstanding that there had yet to be put in place any environmental assessment process; notwithstanding that the Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of that site, remain implacably opposed to it; and notwithstanding, as we now know only too well, the risks that must always emerge with the expansion of the nuclear industry of possible diversion.The Labor Party, on this issue, has had a consistent, strong and honourable role throughout the debate. Whilst tonight we welcome the government's bringing forward of this legislation, we say to this government that there are yet further measures that you must pursue and undertake to reassure the Australian public that your words are not simply the reactions of a government that says one thing at one particular time to satisfy demands from the community and then does another at a later stage.It is, above all, an issue which our children are concerned about. Whenever you travel throughout this country and address concerns of young Australians, one of the issues they put before you is their concerns about the global arms race. I guess those of my age—and most of us in this parliament are my age or older—have come to accept the apparent reality of these tensions and the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of a number of states. We have learnt to live within that framework.But we have become far too complacent. The Australian community expects more of us than that we will now introduce sanctions and other measures against India and Pakistan. They expect us to move down the road of facilitating the work of the Canberra Commission. They expect us to give international leadership of the kind that the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) spoke about when he detailed the work over more than a decade of Labor in government as it built international momentum towards disarmament.It expects that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will not resile from those difficult tasks—they are difficult and they do involve our dealing with powerful and influential friends who will not welcome those interventions—but they are tasks which Australians, particularly young Australians, demand of us. It particularly behoves us as we address what may emerge in the next election to look at the commitments of both parties with respect to the uranium industry. Thus far, no new mines have been approved by the present government. Let us hope that that is the state we are at at the next election because, unless compelled by all steps having been taken such that we must regard mining of uranium as being an existing process, a future Labor government will not allow any new uranium mines to open. That sends an unambiguous message to the world on where we stand on these issues that are so significant to us and future Australian generations.21:50:004343Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—It is not my intention to delay the House for very long tonight but I would like to join in this bipartisan debate and to express my satisfaction, indeed my congratulations, to the government and in particular to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), who is at the table, for the tremendous work that has been undertaken by Australia over many years in the United Nations to bring about what we are debating here tonight, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 . I think the debate has been significant and I will not go over the territory that was covered by the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton).One of the great privileges I have had during my 23 years or so in this place has been to serve in New York as a parliamentary adviser with the United Nations General Assembly. That happened in 1995. It was at that time that Australia was sponsoring and promoting a resolution condemning French nuclear tests in the Pacific. I suppose, in a very small way, I had an exposure to what this operation was all about. The then Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Butler, who has gone on to bigger things at the United Nations, was very keen that the two parliamentary advisers become involved with the operations of the UN. In this respect I would like to pay tribute to the now retired Senator Dominic Foreman from South Australia who was my colleague during that period in the United Nations.It was partly our job to go around to gather information, to gather intelligence, to try to coerce some of the delegates and advisers to the various delegations to the United Nations to come on board the Australian bandwagon and to promote the condemnation of the French nuclear tests. That in itself was a fascinating exercise. For those of us who have been involved in lobbying exercises in this House, may I suggest that when you get on that international stage and you have to deal with some of the international characters and some of the international characteristics of the representatives and the nations of the United Nations it is an entirely different game. As it was, Australia was successful in getting that resolution through. I think that it was a very great tribute not only to the then staff of the Australian United Nations delegation but indeed to the team in Geneva as well.But during that whole period the one thing that really came through to me was the respect that Australia had built up over many years. In that forum of the United Nations, one of the things of which I was most proud was simply the fact that Australia was regarded as an honest broker. We were not seen as a massive power, we were not seen as one that would have huge public influence, but we were seen as this honest broker which could go around and tell it like was and which could negotiate and argue. Indeed, I think the work that had been done during the previous decade was probably a tribute to this.I think that that Australian quest now has reached the point where we are looking at the test ban treaty and that Australia very early in the piece had done all the right things. I think too that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be commended for what he did. In fact, at the first available opportunity he was in there initialling the agreement. Australia had to do that. We were looked to as the country to make those leads. While tonight mention has been made on a number of occasions of the situation with India and Pakistan, I agree with the last speaker that the role of Australia as a world leader in this regard has in many respects just begun. I think it is a tribute to this government that we have looked to the area of landmines and those other areas where we can have some confidence in convincing so many nations to come on board to try to get these wretched weapons of destruction out of the system altogether.The foreign minister should be congratulated on his very quick call for the meeting that is going to be held tomorrow. I think that it is going to be up to Australia once again tomorrow to show that lead in providing the condemnation of what has happened between India and Pakistan. I hope Australia will once more show that leadership in bringing other nations on board so that India and Pakistan well and truly get the message that this particular situation that they find themselves in is not to be congratulated, is not to be supported.With those few words, in light of the restrictions on this debate, I extend my congratulations to all who have been involved in getting us to this point in the House tonight where we are actually going to put through this bill. I pay tribute to all those who over many years—in particular, a number of our foreign ministers—have been so dedicated in their task and so dedicated in making sure that Australia is a leader in the field of nuclear disarmament.21:56:004344Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, I have a long history of involvement in the campaign against nuclear weapons. In that context, I am pleased to say that there is largely a bipartisan approach to this important and complex issue this evening. I also want to refer to the fact that I believe that the television pictures, the newspaper headlines and the radio stories which blared out at us all last night and this morning reflect the urgency of this debate on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.After the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War many people hoped and thought that a new era of peace would settle on the world. We all watched the hype when some nuclear facilities in the USA and the former Soviet Union were decommissioned. We again hoped that these were further signs of a new era of peace settling on the world. I also understand the important role that Australia has in the UN. I myself used to experience that in the ILO, which is part of the UN. Australia is not a large country from a population point of view, but it is always regarded as an honest broker; a nation that has the capacity to work out a reasonable solution and to draw other parties to that solution.It is for this reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I, like you and many others in the House, have spent many active years in the peace movement. The developments of previous years were good signs in respect of this particular movement. After all, many a time I proudly marched behind my union's banner, calling for nuclear test bans as part of the huge annual Sydney Palm Sunday marches. I want to place on record this evening my appreciation of former Senator Bruce Childs, who was active in the development of and involved in those mass rallies, those Palm Sunday marches, not just in Sydney but in many towns and centres around Australia.We in the union movement in Australia have always, I am pleased to say, strongly voiced our opposition to the mounting stockpile of nuclear warheads. It is also interesting to note that, historically, we have in many instances been attacked for that view. We called on the Australian people and we called on our government to take strong and decisive steps in opposition to the madness of nuclear stockpiles. We hoped and thought that, with the end of the Cold War, we would also see an end to these stockpiles. It is a long held desire of many Australian families.The Australian people made their voices heard at that time. The Palm Sunday marches were an institution which grew and grew as the threat seemed to increase and slowly dissipated as the nuclear threat seemed to recede. I now think that the Australian people must once more march peacefully in the streets and make their voices heard again. The claim must be: we do not want nuclear war.That is what the Australian people want to make loud and clear not just to this parliament but also internationally. We have to take to the streets. As a nation that has contributed to development of the changes that have occurred on the nuclear front, we are not going to tolerate and we do not want nuclear war. I hope that unions and other groups—churches and community organisations—join with all other sections of Australian society to make their voices heard. We must tell the governments of India and Pakistan that the peoples of this region are opposed to the mounting nuclear menace that they represent, in the same way that we sent our voice to France in recent times.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) must take every effort to get these two countries to sign up to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Diverting the scarce resources of India and Pakistan into a muscle flexing nuclear competition is not good for the millions of poor people in those two countries. But getting India and Pakistan to back off and to talk treaty will mean more positive action on nuclear disarmament by the Western world. It is about leadership. You have got to lead by example. On that note, the charges of hypocrisy aimed at France, the United States and others is a very real charge. We have to face up to that in the debate about the bill before the House this evening.Non-aligned nations have correctly been lobbying for the real elimination of nuclear weapons. The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, in its preamble, makes repeated mention of the need for nuclear disarmament, but there is no commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons. That is a debate that must occur not just within Australia but also internationally. The Western nuclear powers have flatly rejected the position of the non-aligned nations who have consistently argued for a time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament.I think that the West must take steps now which will lift the charge of hypocrisy and so bring India and Pakistan into the negotiations for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. India, as we all know, has by far been the most important and vocal opponent of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. They, for example, back the claims of the non-aligned who argue that the treaty does not do enough to advance total nuclear disarmament and is thus merely a non-proliferation measure. They argue that the treaty, as it exists, allows the existing nuclear weapons states to maintain a discriminatory status quo. India's representative in the United Nations, Ambassador Prakash Shah, said:Clearly the nuclear weapon states have no intention of giving up their dependence on nuclear weapons, nor do they have any intention of letting the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty become an impediment to their pursuit of the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons. In such circumstances it was not surprising that the negotiations were skewed and the text which emerged, far from being the intended historic step towards a nuclear free world, will only succeed in perpetuating a discriminatory status quo.Since those statements were made, unfortunately, I consider that a right-wing Hindu-centric government has come to power in India which is prepared to use the rhetoric of the disarmers to cover its own aggressive drive to become part of the nuclear club, and we should not lose sight of that issue.The people in charge of India are influenced by a narrow-minded ideology which is perceived as being hostile to both its own Muslim citizens as well as its Muslim neighbours. Pakistan correctly feels threatened and has retaliated, unfortunately, with its own nuclear tests. The clandestine nuclear program which Pakistan had been involved in, with the alleged secretive help of China, is now well and truly in the open. Pakistan's worry about India has always been related to its view that its huge neighbour would get some type of advantage in the nuclear race.Now that Pakistan has so dramatically tested its nuclear capacity, it has unfortunately been lauded by some Islamic nations for being the first to hold the so-called Islamic nuclear bomb. Our worry as a nation, and of those who are concerned about the importance of the state of the international community, must now be how the third threshold nuclear state, namely, Israel, reacts to the headlines in the Islamic media which have rejoiced at Pakistan's new nuclear status. We should use whatever influence we have with Israel to ensure that they do not get involved in this escalating nuclear madness. It must come to a stop. India and Pakistan are to be condemned. Israel must show leadership and in doing so win brownie points by not responding and joining the move.Across the political parties, Australia has played a laudable role in the Conference on Disarmament. Both the current Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) and the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), are to be congratulated on the manner in which they have set about contributing to this debate. I also have a view that Australia's delegation to the conference was among the most active and was noted for its ability to negotiate between all parties to progress the cause of nuclear disarmament. Australia will continue to play a key role, along with Russia and the USA, by providing the technical experts and the technologies to monitor the implementation of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.All of this, I consider, gives us a special status in the debate about further proliferation of nuclear arms. We should use this status as an honest broker; that is how we have long been regarded in the UN process—a nation that is properly regarded and respected as an honest broker. But with India and Pakistan we must use that capacity to stop any further destabilising escalation of this regional nuclear armaments race. For future generations, we must ensure that we stop this escalation spreading, especially into the tinder box of Middle East politics.I urge all Australians, across the political spectrum, to act cooperatively to further the aims of full and final nuclear disarmament. The government of Australia, along with ordinary Australians of all political persuasions, should show its displeasure with India and Pakistan. We did not want the French to test their nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, in our backyard, which had the potential to have disastrous environmental impacts on our eastern seaboard. This evening we do not want the Indians and the Pakistanis to escalate their regional nuclear arms race which will have a potentially disastrous environmental impact on our western seaboard.I am very pleased to be associated with the developments to date. In my own way I have sought to suggest this evening that we must not cease the progress that has been made and that we must not rest on our laurels. Hopefully, further progress can be made over time to achieve full and proper nuclear disarmament. But the first challenge this evening is to impress on the governments of India and Pakistan that enough is enough. More importantly, we should not just send a loud and clear message to India and Pakistan that enough is enough, but we should make it clear that we do not want it to go beyond India and Pakistan.22:08:004347Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I am pleased to rise in this debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 , which has obviously assumed a largely bipartisan approach. I was pleased to see that that tone was set by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) and carried in large measure by subsequent speakers, although I must say that I was a little disappointed to hear the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) suggest that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), who is at the table, might be resiling from our pursuit of the CTBT and associated matters. Of course that is not the case, and I congratulate the minister on his actions to date.It is interesting that the first nuclear test occurred on 17 July 1945—more than 50 years ago, but within the lifetime of, if not most, certainly a large number of members of this chamber. The second explosion was about three weeks later at Hiroshima, which killed between 70,000 and 130,000 people. Three days after that there was another explosion at Nagasaki, which killed 45,000 people. It is those statistics that we need to stop and think about from time to time to remind us about why this is such an important topic.It is good news that, after those two explosions, we have never seen nuclear weapons used in war again. But there have been approximately 2,000 nuclear tests since that time, including 12 British tests here in Australia between 1952 and 1954. And we went through all that long period of the Cold War where nuclear weapons were the `deterrent' that stopped further world-wide conflagration. Recently, of course, we have seen a number of other nuclear controversies over testing by China and more recently by France in the South Pacific. Over many years, all of this has led to a lot of calls for banning nuclear testing.The CTBT was open for signature on 24 September 1996. We have heard that that there was groundwork done by the previous government, and that was carried on under the auspices of the present foreign minister. The CTBT was signed by the United States, the UK, Russia, France and China—amongst the nuclear nations—and by Australia. The treaty enters into force either 180 days after some 44 signatory countries have ratified it or two years—whichever is later. France and the United Kingdom have already ratified, and I understand that we are likely to ratify this year. The purpose of the bill we are debating tonight is to give effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the CTBT. The treaty bans for all time the carrying out of nuclear weapons tests. It provides for a stringent verification regime, for the establishment and operation of Australian monitoring stations and for a number of other detailed measures.In an earlier life when I was in the military—quite a number of years ago—I received training and exposure to films and other information about the ramifications of nuclear weapons. What I saw and learnt then was quite horrifying. When I learnt it as a young man in the military, I would have to say that I believe we thought it was a real prospect that it might occur—and that really was quite terrifying. As years have gone by and the prospect of nuclear conflagration has diminished, we have seen an exposure to the general population as to what nuclear weapons might bring through television, mass communications and other ways. Generally there is a total acceptance throughout most of the civilised world that it must not be allowed to come to that.In this country we are aware of the residue of the British tests here in Australia. We have seen that in some of the ongoing legal battles here in Australia, particularly in South Australia, with the British government seeking to make good the damage that was done and some compensation for the residents, particularly indigenous people in South Australia. We are aware of the French tests in the Pacific and we are currently very much aware of the front page news in respect of India and Pakistan and the tests which they have conducted—and a number of previous speakers have alluded to those tests.I had the opportunity to visit India and Pakistan in 1996 as part of a parliamentary delegation, and I know that the minister has been there since. One of the better analyses I have come across amongst much of the media coverage in the last few days was in an article in today's Australian by Professor Amin Saikal. He talked at some length, but he made the point that Pakistan's economy is on the verge of bankruptcy and that its society is in the grip of deep social divisions, expanding sectarian violence, widespread corruption—both at government and non-government organisational level—and that it is noted for its human rights violations as well as for its extensive lack of law and order and political instability. It seems to me that in that environment you run into the problem where governments are inclined to look for external matters to raise in order to paper over the internal problems and to get the populace to focus on nationalistic issues.Of course, one could say much the same thing about India. Although India is allegedly a strong democratic country, it has gone through a number of governments in short order, often minority governments. It has appalling poverty to deal with, and so it is a fact of history that governments throughout the ages, given a situation where they have had problems at home, have tended to try to divert attention to the wider or external issues that confront those countries.When I was in India and Pakistan we as a delegation actually raised with both the Indian government and the Pakistani government the subject of CTBT because it was at a time when we were leading up to the vote on it and the commitment in the United Nations. There was a total non-acceptance of the view that Australia was putting forward. From the highest levels of government down to the man in the street, it was quite clear that there was strong support for the sort of action which the governments of India and Pakistan have taken today. There is no question in my mind that there is popular support in both of those countries.I find it incredible that there are resources for developing a nuclear capability and, potentially, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems in countries that have such appalling poverty. It is almost incomprehensible. But there is a strong nationalistic spirit. We have seen the pictures on television of the dancing in the streets and so on. That is representative of the attitude in those countries.What worries me is that we are not only talking about a potential escalation of problems between India and Pakistan or—of course, the trigger might well be there—the Kashmir problem; and we are looking at a long history of enmity between the two countries, going back to when they were first formed and to subsequent events and wars. It seems to me also that there is a real problem with those two countries in terms of escalating the potential nuclear strife in other areas as well. For example, Pakistan has exploded its bomb fairly close to Afghanistan and it has sided very much with one side of the civil war in Afghanistan. It has perhaps issued something of a threat, de facto to places like Iran and certainly to some of those central Asian republics that have become independent since the USSR broke up. One can see some potential concerns there and one can see that some of those countries under the Russian nuclear umbrella might well look to their own defensive positions. India, of course, has concerns in respect of China and its nuclear capability. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, there may even be a flow-through from the Middle East on to Israel.So it seems to me that we are not only debating tonight our concerns about India and Pakistan in that sense but talking about the potential spread of that damage, that potential danger, through far wider regions. Therefore, the only real way that we are going to deal with this problem is to implement things like the CTBT. It is through the United Nations—through all nations of the world coming together—that we are going to deal with this problem and we are going to apply pressure to some of those nations that may not otherwise willingly come to the table and fall into line in getting rid of their nuclear capability and nuclear weapons. I think it is important that the United States, China and Russia ratify and set an example in terms of this treaty. I would also like to see them go further and start to eliminate some of their stockpiles.I think it is important that India and Pakistan start talking and not testing. For our part, we must continue to be active participants in the international debate. I know the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the table will do that and he is to be congratulated on his efforts to date. I am sure he will pursue that vigorously in the future because it is important that we go down that line. A continuing step in that process is passing this legislation tonight and I commend the bill to the House.22:20:004349Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—On this most serious topic it is pleasing that in what some people call a robust chamber, where we so strongly disagree on so many issues, we can really speak this evening on this issue with, if you like, one voice. I think that might say something about the strength of feeling on this topic and, indeed, about us as members of parliament. This nuclear test ban treaty is the cornerstone of international security and Australia has played an important role in this. I do appreciate the need that some people feel for security and how people feel threatened, but I do feel that there has been an overreaction in some quarters. I do congratulate not only the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) at the table but also the preceding foreign minister, Mr Gareth Evans, as well. They have both worked diligently on this and they both bring to this topic not only a lot of experience but also deep feeling.Just when we thought the world had finally come to its senses and understood the absolute destruction of civilisation as we know it that can be wrought by nuclear weaponry, over the past couple of weeks the world has seen two nations explode nuclear devices. The debate over the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty legislation before us provides a timely opportunity for Australia to once again indicate to the rest of the world that we strongly oppose the testing and use of nuclear weaponry by any country.Australia, under both political parties, has been a key player in the adoption of this treaty and we can be proud of our longstanding record on disarmament issues. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have seen the explosion of nuclear weapons by India and now, over the last few days, by Pakistan—nuclear weapons explosions by two nations in this part of the world. India and Pakistan have been playing macho games, trying with all their might to outdo one another in the testing of nuclear weaponry. Both nations have fundamentally thumbed their noses at international opinion and now both nations face the prospect of biting sanctions on economic, political, diplomatic and military fronts.It is a matter of great tragedy that two countries within Asia, notwithstanding their great promise, have turned their backs on their own people and diverted hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and produce nuclear weaponry. Both India and Pakistan are, as the Prime Minister justifiably related last week in media reports, dirt poor countries. Both countries have huge populations with enormous social problems. Both countries are struggling to feed, water and shelter their people and to ensure that even basic health standards are maintained and developed for their huge populations. Yet this overriding need of their own people is ignored to develop and produce nuclear weapons. The leadership of both India and Pakistani governments, I am reduced to say, have their priorities mangled and confused.I saw a cartoon by Prior over the weekend in the Sydney Morning Herald which really put this issue into perspective. It is in deep contrast to the television images we have seen of jumping, excited Indians and Pakistanis greeting another test explosion and their political leadership revelling in the so-called `glory'. The cartoon showed a woman with three small, thin children hanging off her back and shoulders squatting amongst smoke and ruins. There was no sign of relief on her face that her government had successfully tested a nuclear weapon; she was not up dancing with joy or excitement—in fact, as Prior captured it, her face revealed more of the same hunger, pain and poverty which have always been her lot in life. I get a little tired and cynical whenever a government in a poverty-stricken nation sounds off with such pride that they have tested nuclear weapons.There is no greater supporter of Australia's foreign aid program in this parliament than I. I support Australia making a contribution to improve the living standards of our neigh bours, be they here in our own backyard or in other troubled continents of the world. I, like, I suspect, all members of parliament, cop the usual questions about looking after our own before we look to others. I defend our aid program because it is right, it is principled and it is absolutely appropriate that Australia as a first world nation should contribute to the improvement of the living standards of people in other nations. It does become difficult, even for great supporters of aid contributions, to continually defend these contributions when nations like India and Pakistan—dirt poor—use their resources to develop weapons of absolute destruction. I have absolutely no argument with the stand the foreign minister took on this issue.Periodically I get information from the Iraq Embassy—nice, neat tables of statistics indicating the suffering of many people of Iraq, particularly children. Yet Iraq has squandered resources to develop nuclear and chemical weapons and took the world to the brink of military action again quite recently. Only good commonsense and the leadership of the United Nations Secretary-General averted retracing the steps of Desert Storm after the war of 1991. There are so many nations with nuclear capacity in the world: the big five—the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China—and of course the would-be nations like Israel, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya. And now we have India and Pakistan wrapped into the bargain.It is also interesting that nations that explode nuclear weapons often call immediately for peace initiatives once they have done the deed. In the weekend media there were endless reports about the government of India wanting peace talks and the immediate convening of the conference on disarmament. It seems to me all just a little too late and a little too clever by half. India showed no sign of willingness to sign or ratify the test ban treaty and Pakistan indicated that her actions would be conditional on those of India. Now there are calls for convening yet another talkfest.In all my years in the parliament, I have never before been critical of India. But as someone who has enormous affection for India and who recognises the potential of India, I am appalled at what it has done. This is not the way. You in India have so much; there is no need for this. I also believe that a true friend of India, which I believe I am, will tell you when you are wrong. Some years ago I was part of the group of members of parliament that went to Tahiti to protest about what the French were doing in that part of the world. Again today I protest very strongly about what India and Pakistan are involved in.It is good that we can approach this issue in a bipartisan manner. We recognise the tremendous contribution of the former foreign minister under the Labor government and the current foreign minister. I am very pleased to be associated with this legislation before the House.22:28:004350Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I am very glad to endorse the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 and to see that it has bipartisan support. It is important to reflect on the history of nuclear explosions. The first nuclear test was detonated on 16 July 1945 in New Mexico by the United States. Soon after then, on 6 August 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima where 100,000 people were killed. Three days later it was dropped on Nagasaki where over 45,000 people were killed. Since then there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted worldwide, even on the Australian continent—from 1952 to 1957 there were 12 nuclear tests carried out by the British.As we look further down the history of nuclear tests, in 1963 a partial test ban treaty banning all but underground tests was negotiated. In 1970 the non-proliferation treaty entered into force, banning nuclear powers from passing technology on to other nations. This was particularly important for Australia and its exports of uranium.Closer to home, in late 1995 there was great concern when France conducted a number of tests on Mururoa Atoll, much to the horror of all Australians and members on both sides of the House. On 24 September 1996 the coalition government under the stewardship of the foreign minister signed the comprehensive ban treaty with five declared nuclear pow ers—the US, the UK, China, Russia and France.Two countries have ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty—France and Britain—and this bill will allow Australia to do the same. Clearly, the great concern to this House and to parliaments across the globe is the degree of urgency, given what is happening on the subcontinent in relation to the two countries, India and Pakistan. The decision by India to have five underground tests—Debate interrupted.Adjournment435110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.435122:30:004351McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I rise to express concern with an article appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning written by a Mr Wainwright, not so much over the point of view of Mr Wainwright's opinions but because the article was entitled, `Aircraft noise targets missed, and same suburbs bear the brunt'. Mr Wainwright spoke of how the government's long-term operating plan is not achieving its results and of how the current mode of operating Kingsford Smith Airport is not achieving the percentages over the respective suburbs that the government had intended to achieve to supposedly `share the noise'.My concern is that Mr Wainwright and so many other people have approached the topic with the view that those percentages are attainable. Anyone with commonsense will tell you that they are just not attainable. They cannot happen for two reasons: safety and efficiency. Any sensible person looking at a two-lane highway is going to tell you that that two-lane highway is going to operate far more safely, far more efficiently in terms of traffic flow and without the risk of accident if you have not got an intersection across it.What we are talking about is akin to a two-lane highway at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, with, of course, a parallel north-south runway and the long-term operating plan being dependent upon using the east-west crossing runway mode of operation. So, effectively you are putting an intersection in a two-lane highway where jumbo jets are travelling at 300 kilometres an hour before they take off. Unlike a two-lane highway, you cannot put up a stop sign and you cannot put up traffic lights—those planes cannot stop. If an error is made, there is going to be a collision with devastating consequences.It is about time that those on the government side admitted that the long-term operating plan cannot work. It cannot happen because of the safety consequences. The crossing runway mode of operation is operating only during non-peak periods because there is an acknowledgment by at least the experts who are operating the airport that to operate it at peak hour is just ludicrous. However, during the non-peak periods, to bump up these statistics—and Mr Wainwright referred to the intention to bump them up between now and September—there is a lot of pressure being put on pilots and on air traffic controllers to use the crossing runway mode of operation for the sake of mere statistics.Pilots are complaining that they are being forced to use the crossing runway mode of operation in crosswinds of up to 25 knots, despite the fact that the international standard is only 15 knots. Air traffic controllers—or at least their association—have written directly to the minister expressing their concern. The pilots have written to the minister expressing their concern. Yet those on the other side of the House are continuing with this facade that these targets are attainable.They are just not attainable and the consequences are going to be an accident with devastating consequences. I do not say that lightly because the figures indicate that 83 per cent of accidents occur within eight kilometres of an airport. Indeed, 60 per cent of accidents occur on take-off or landing: it is a very vulnerable time for an airport operation.The environmental impact statement procedure into the third runway at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) said that, on the figures of 0.03 fatalities for every 100,000 landings, the probabilities are that there will be an accident at Sydney KSA within the next 40 years. So we are talking about a situation where there is probably going to be an accident and we are talking about a situation where this minister—and this government—for purely political reasons is directing planes over people's homes instead of over the water for the sake of statistics and for the sake of in electioneering brochures—not for efficiency and not for safety but for purely base political motives that are unattainable.It is about time this government woke up to the fact and admitted to the Australian public that the long-term operating plan is a farce. It is about time that it got on with the logical planning and operation of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and got on with the job of building a second Sydney airport.435222:35:004352Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise tonight on the eve of the National Day of Italy, a day of great recognition and great significance that I wish to bring to the House's attention. As the first Italo-Australian female to sit in the House of Representatives, it is with great pride that I acknowledge the impact which Italians have made on this country.To find the significance of 2 June, one needs to go back some 50 years. The Republic of Italy came into being on 1 January 1948 following the uprisings of the Second World War. It followed a referendum on 2 June in 1946 to abolish the monarchy, and a new constitution was proclaimed in December 1947. Considering the present debate in Australia on the republic, it is interesting to note that a vote of over 22 million people in Italy in 1946 fell in the favour of the republic by 54 per cent.Many Italians arrived in this country with very little apart from the hope of a new beginning. Many were escaping turmoils in their home country, particularly after World War II. The period from 1947 to 1976 saw some 270,000 migrants to Australia, mainly from Sicily, Calabria and Veneto. A strong work ethic has always existed within the Italian community and many commenced small businesses that have grown substantially throughout the years. Whether it is a small grocery, a take-away, a convenience store or, as in many cases, a large family business, they continue to grow and prosper.It is important to make the point that this government is building stronger ties with the Italian government, further enhancing our trade and investment relations. Italy is one of the largest export markets for Australia and the European community for products such as wool, leather, coking coal, hides, skins and cotton. In investment terms, such names as Fiat, Olivetti, Ferrero and Pirelli are becoming very well known in Australia.It is often said that Australia has become a country built on strong multicultural values. In every respect, migration has been fundamental in the development of the Australian way of life and it is a key element in the continued growth of our nation, with the encouragement and enhancement of skills, technology and the harnessing of talents. We have a commitment to ensuring that all Australians aspire to and realise their dreams.The federal government has highlighted priority areas such as the enhancement of English language programs, ethnic aged care, choice in education and dealing with the special needs of refugees. These are just some of the many areas which require greater priority to provide freedom of choice and the preservation of traditions. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to be present at a local citizenship ceremony. I believe it is the enduring strength and credibility of our national institutions and our character which have attracted so many people to establish a new life in Australia.In closing, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work that is currently being done in this country by the Italian Ambassador, Mr Castellaneta. He puts great effort into his role and his commitment to stronger ties between our nations.435222:39:004352Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—As the shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I welcome the remarks of the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro) about the importance of the national day of Italy. I would say in passing that the speech was also interesting for what it did not say. I would have thought that someone who professes support for multiculturalism would have, as a coalition member, made a very clear statement about the need to put One Nation last in the federal seat of Petrie at the next election. That is a debate that we will continue to have because it comes back to leadership and being willing to put your political future at risk for the sake of making a statement about the importance of multiculturalism.I rise tonight to speak about today's newspaper reports on the results of a disturbing new study on the hardships which have been caused by the government's upheaval to employment services. The study has been published by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the well-known social justice arm of Australia's Anglican Church—not the Labor Party, not the trade union movement and not the Liberal Party, but part of the Anglican Church. The Brotherhood of St Laurence is an organisation with a very long and very proud record of giving help to Australia's unemployed and of helping to tackle the real causes of unemployment.The study was carried out by an independent researcher at the Australian National University, Dr Paul Pickering. It was launched by the Brotherhood of St Laurence's highly respected executive director—none other than Bishop Michael Challen. What did this impeccably credentialled study have to say about the new so-called Job Network? It described it as treating Australia's unemployed people like `laboratory mice'. It likened the changes to employment services in this nation to a scientific experiment. The problem is that, unfortunately, the laboratory mice in the government's experiment are real people—members of real families with real hardship. That is what the report states, and they are very strong words. They are words that ought to be heeded by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), who is carrying out, with delight, this cruel experiment which now describes Australia's unemployed as laboratory mice. He ought to listen to these words of warning from the Anglican Church because if he does not—and I know it is a worry about the backbench over there at the moment—he will get the message at the ballot box, and these backbenchers know that. This is why one of them, with a bit of courage, is reported in today's newspapers as being scared about the effect in the coming election of `the mess with Kemp'. The government MP says:There are blokes in my electorate who've been told they'll have to pay thousands of dollars to put on employees. And you don't get your money back if they're no good. Your money's down the drain—That is what this nervous government member points out.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Who is it?SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What's his name?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—You know who it is, and so do I. And it is not you, Mr Speaker. You are departing the House; you are getting out while the going is good. The message for Dr Kemp, one month into his new and floundering changes to Australia's jobs market, is crystal clear.I think the government ought to stop treating Australia's unemployed like mice in a cruel experiment. They ought to start treating the unemployed like human beings—with respect, compassion and commonsense. That is what Australians want from their governments and, unlike now, that is what they will get from Labor.To think that in this day and age the view of the Brotherhood of St Laurence is that this government—a government of so-called feeling and compassion for Australia—is conducting a laboratory experiment in which Australia's unemployed are being treated as laboratory mice. They ought to be talking to Glenn Milne to get a message through to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and to the minister for employment that Australia's unemployed are not laboratory mice. They are people with family responsibilities who deserve better. Enough is enough.It is about time this government faced up to the fact that families in this country are experiencing hardship. They are not laboratory mice. They want a helping hand from government and, as the backbencher said to Glenn Milne in the Australian article today, there is something wrong at the heart of government because this government has walked away from its responsibilities to the whole Australian population. It is not a government for all; it is a government for its mates, and especially those frontbench mates who want to look after their trusts, line their own pockets and look after their own welfare. (Time expired)435422:44:004354Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I note that unemployment in this country is at the lowest level in eight years. It is not a bad result.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—And you think that is sufficient, do you? You think that's enough—80,000 people?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I can tell you that I have Employment National right next to my office, and they have a lot of happy customers. I have lost count of the number of times, over the past two years, that men have contacted my office asking where they can go for advice or support to help them cope with relationship breakdowns, family problems or other problems.For women in significant metropolitan centres, it is a question that often can be answered relatively easily. One can generally find a number of other services set up to specifically help women in difficult situations. But for men it is a different question altogether. Sadly, there are very few specific programs or support mechanisms out there for men to help them in times of distress or relationship breakdown. It is an issue I raised in my first contribution to a grievance debate in this House back in October 1996, when I said:Men's counselling services are needed that deal with issues such as sexual traumas, loss, grief and coping, and family and relationship breakdowns. Men cry too!They do cry. In fact, men in Australia have suicide rates that are three to four times higher than for women. In Queensland, separated males have suicide rates up to 7.6 times higher than those for married males, which is a fact I also pointed out to the House back in October 1996.As well as bringing this matter to the attention of the House, I also raised it as an issue directly with the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman). I was therefore delighted that the Attorney-General's office last Friday announced a program called support for men and relationships. The government has announced a $6 million trial program to put into support for men and relationship matters. The Attorney-General has called for submissions from community organisations to trial innovative services that aim to support men and help them cope with relationship problems. This is not a matter of it being a male issue or a female issue or a gender issue; it is a matter of a need in the community. Six million dollars has been allocated to trial these programs. To quote from the Attorney-General's media release:A major focus of this initiative will be on preventative services to improve men's relationship skills with their partners and their children, and to provide relationship support for men during and after relationship breakdown.I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General for taking this step. It is a good start. It is a positive step, and it is a decision that I wholeheartedly support and welcome. Ultimately we will need to carry this further. Funding needs be allocated to support effective and successful programs on an ongoing basis. What must not be allowed to happen is for this to simply be a one-off exercise. Knowing the Attorney-General's personal interest in this and other relationship issues, I am confident that will not be the case.It was only a few weeks ago that I was publicly congratulating him for the work he was doing tackling family breakdown and relationship problems specific to indigenous communities. The Attorney-General recently announced that several organisations, including Townsville Centacare, had successfully tendered to run pilot programs to address problems within indigenous communities. Again, it is something that has been greatly needed for a long time now. The Townsville Centacare program will be running in cooperation with the Townsville Aboriginal and Island Health Service will take place in Palm Island as well as the Townsville community. I know that Centacare is very enthusiastic about engaging in this trial project, and I wish Tony McDermott and his team at Centacare and TAHIS team all the very best.I intend to work with groups in Townsville and Thuringowa to make sure our community puts in a submission for funding which is coordinated and innovative and addresses the real needs of men at the grassroots level. This is a unique opportunity to do something practical and to start addressing the lack of services and support mechanisms out there for men. There are many hundreds of small men's groups scattered right around Australia. Those few that are funded are funded poorly, at best. They are disjointed, unstructured and disparate. Most would not know of the others' existence. This situation has to change and, if there is to be any meaningful change, the decision last Friday by the Attorney-General is a very good place to start.435522:49:004355Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Today the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), I understand just recently back from a fairly important trip overseas, decided that maybe the best way to handle his first question time back in the House was to have a dorothy dixer from his own side directed to him regarding the newsletter that I put out to my electorate of Namadgi. I do not need the minister to tell me that the electorate of Namadgi and the people in it are important. As this House and everybody in it knows, I take every opportunity I can to talk about my community and to defend my community from some of the attacks of this government. Today in question time the minister decided on his own that Namadgi and its community were in fact important enough to arrange a dorothy dixer to him on this article in my newsletter. Thank you very much, Minister, for elevating Namadgi and my electorate newsletter so much.The minister has taken exception, I understand, to an article in the Namadgi Advocate relating to this government's attitude to Medicare and the issue of bulkbilling. The minister's assertions in question time today do nothing at all to alter the fact that bulkbilling rates in the ACT are significantly lower than the national average. For two years, the minister has been dismissing claims by organisations such as the AMA and the Doctors Reform Society that his 1996 GP rebate freeze would cause a drop in bulkbilling. Nationally, bulkbilling rates for the March quarter of 1998 were almost a full percentage point lower, at 79.54 per cent, than the corresponding figure of 80.48 per cent. In the ACT, bulkbilling for the March quarter was 66.5 per cent, still a full 13 percentage points behind the falling national rate.The minister's performance in question time today represents, to me, a shameless attempt to score some points in the health debate. Unfortunately for the residents and the families of Namadgi, this sort of game playing by the minister does nothing at all to resolve the crisis in our health system. Private health insurance costs, as we know, continue to rise and the public system continues to suffer huge funding cuts. Nothing the minister says can take away from the fact that his government has cut $3.6 billion out of public health by cuts to hospitals, dental services, pharmaceutical benefits and Medicare, and through the budgets has put back less than $2 billion. As I said in a debate in this place earlier today, $800 million has been taken out of public hospitals, $500 million has gone from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and $400 million has been taken by abolishing the Commonwealth dental health scheme.If the minister is so keen to debate his record on Medicare, I hereby challenge him to release the bulkbilling figures for all federal electorates rather than using selective figures to attempt to justify his failed health policies. Money has been taken out of public hospitals and out of dental care, as I have said. Then what do we see? Premiers walking out of talks with the government. The fact is that the health debate in this country and the health services in this country have now reached chaos. The thing that upsets me the most about the question relating to health care is that our families deserve nothing more and nothing less than to have a feeling of full confidence and security in our health system. Unfortunately, under the current government and with the methods being used in cost cutting and cost shifting, they do not have that security or that confidence. That is not just me saying that; there would be very few, if any, members in this House who could honestly say, hand on heart, that their constituencies are not genuinely concerned about health in this country.There are serious questions to be dealt with in the area of health. I suggest that the minister would be better served spending his time and effort attending to them than taking exception to a few words in the Namadgi Advocate. I stand by the report in the Advocate. I stand by my community's demand of me to represent them to this government in the health debate, and I will continue to do so with great strength.435622:53:004356Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to express my thanks and gratitude on behalf of the people of the Central Coast and the residents of Gosford in particular. I had the honour and the pleasure of announcing on Friday evening on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) $12 million in federation funding that has been allocated to a multipurpose sports stadium for Grahame Park, situated in my electorate at Gosford. This multipurpose stadium will have a total cost of $29.5 million. It will be a 20,000-seat stadium, something that the Central Coast has desperately needed for a long time and something that we have been hoping we would be able to construct on the Central Coast. With a population of about 200,000 people, at this stage we do not have a sporting venue of any significance on the Central Coast.The allocation of the $12 million from the federation funding was, I guess, the incentive that allowed the state government to contribute a matching grant of $12 million, which Premier Carr announced last Sunday. The rest of the funding will come from the Central Coast Leagues Club and the North Sydney Football Club.The North Sydney Bears relocation has created a lot of excitement on the Central Coast. There has been much talk about the possibility of the North Sydney Bears relocating to the Central Coast. Of course, they needed a home to go to. The multipurpose sports stadium is not just for Rugby League, but the North Sydney Bears will be the major tenant. In the words of the Prime Minister: `The relocation of the North Sydney Bears will do for Gosford what the Newcastle Knights have done for Newcastle.' It will give our community, particularly our young people, a new identity, something to aspire to, a first grade rugby league football team. For those of you outside New South Wales, there are other games, of course—AFL and other types of football—but in New South Wales rugby league is still the premier sport. For the Central Coast to have a first grade rugby league team will give our young people a lot more hope, a lot more optimism, something to aspire to and, as I said, a new identity.The Central Coast is a rapidly growing area. We have a large population of young people. Lots of young families have moved from Sydney and Newcastle to the Central Coast looking for a better lifestyle and more opportunities for their young people. We have had high unemployment on the Central Coast. The policies of this government have helped to relocate and expand many businesses to the Central Coast and our unemployment over the last two years has continued to fall. It is now down to 6.6 per cent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is a very significant fall. But we still have a problem with youth unemployment, as we do throughout Australia. Youth unemployment is far too high.The relocation of the sports stadium to Grahame Park will create many hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs over the next few years. Relocating a first grade rugby league team to a new community is relocating a major multi-million dollar business to that community. It is not just about football. It is a business. It is about jobs. It will enable further jobs to be created, and not just in construction. An injection into our community of $30 million is a major injection into the construction industry, but the facilities there will provide many hundreds of jobs.As I said, the new sports stadium will be a facility that will enable other sports to have a great venue as well. I understand that a state league soccer team will also be based at the facility. Junior sport will have use of the fields. I believe that there will be facilities there for possibly hockey and netball and other football sports as well. So it is something that the community can utilise, not just for rugby league.It really is the key that will unlock the potential of Gosford City. We have been promised a lot in our community but a lot of things have failed to develop. This one has been promised and this one has been delivered. I am pleased to be have been able to announce this major federation funding for Gosford City. I know that the future of the Gosford City is assured with this funding.435722:58:004357Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In the couple of minutes remaining I want to bring to the attention of the House a matter which I raised earlier today and which has to do with the continuing attacks that are being made on multiculturalism as a philosophy and a practice by a range of commentators in the mainstream media in this country. Earlier on we heard the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro) and other members of the government talking about how they support multiculturalism. But the government has been doing nothing in terms of campaigns to try to boost multiculturalism, or in terms of talking about multiculturalism. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) hardly ever uses the term at all. It is no wonder, therefore, that with the rise of extreme right parties and parties based on racist ideology we have a situation now where the media have been emboldened to publicise the views of those people who are mistaken in the basis of their attacks on multiculturalism, who misrepresent multiculturalism and who continue to talk in the language of the racist.The situation is harming this country. Overseas it is not only the so-called Hanson phenomenon which is creating an unnerving situation. We have seen continuing attacks on the immigration policy of this country over and over again in the last few months in the mainstream media without any justification. Much of this so-called reporting is actually misreporting; it is mistaken statements, statements which are not backed up by facts. What we need in this country is for the media at least to have the decency to give the views of those who are opposed to these racist and anti- multiculturalists a fair go.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m., the House stands adjourned.23:00:004357House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices4357The following notices were given:Mr Rocher to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953, in relation to public rulings and determinations of the Commissioner of Taxation.Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to remove discrimination against same sex couples in respect of superannuation benefits.Documents4357The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 June 1998:Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act and Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 107.Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 99.Beef Production Levy Act, Cattle (Exporters) Export Charge Act, Cattle Transactions Levy Act, Live-stock (Exporters) Export Charge Act, Live-stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, Live-stock Slaughter (Processors) Levy Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 106.Charter of the United Nations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 102.Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 100.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 109.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 101.Family Law Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 117.Financial Management and Accountability Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 112.Freedom of Information Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 111.Health Insurance Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 103.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination 1998 No. T11.Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 113.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 115.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 105.Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 110.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, LES 19, LES 20, LES 21, LES 22.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Determination 1998 No. 1.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 108.Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 114.Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Determination 1998 Sydney Airport Compliance Scheme.Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 116.1998-06-01Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 8.00 p.m.Bills4359r5314359Debate resumed from 28 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".20:00:004359Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In making my contribution to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 I would like to spend the brief time available to me to speak about Australia's taxation system. For the first time in this nation's history, in 1997-98 the revenues available to the government as a proportion of GDP were down. They were reduced to some extent because of the reduced dividend from the Reserve Bank of Australia but principally because our taxation base is eroding. In thinking about change, and indeed reform of anything, I would like to present to the committee a passage from a book that was sent to me by a constituent last year entitled Revelation authored by Bernhardt Philbert. He said this of change:Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress but a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other toward a deadly excess hardly leaving any ground between them.I think in considering reform which is essential to Australia's taxation system it behoves all participants in the debate, and in particular political parties, to remember there is nothing worse, as Philbert has more or less said, than being caught with one leg on either side of the proverbial fence. Australia currently taxes everything that we are supposed to be encouraging. We tax productivity, we tax savings, and we tax employment.Our revenue raising concentrates predominantly on income, both personal and corporate, in addition to wholesale sales tax on three principal goods: durables, motor vehicles and beer— all of which represent a diminishing share of household expenditure as it shifts to services. In fact, now about 70 per cent of the Australian economy is services and is largely untaxed.The problems of the taxation system as it is currently structured are these. In 1954 you had to be earning 19 times average weekly earnings to be paying the top marginal tax rate. In today's dollars, that is around $600,000 a year. Today you have to be earning around only 1.4 times average weekly earnings to be paying the top marginal rate. In seven years if we do not undertake reform you will be paying the top marginal rate at average weekly earnings.The Income Tax Assessment Act in 1936 was 120 pages. It is now 3,300 pages, doubling in size over the past seven years. David Koch, the well respected economic and finance commentator for Channel 7 and other media outlets, advised me that the average tax agent has to read or interpret 25 pages of tax ruling every day just to keep up with changes to Australian taxation law.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Sounds as though we need taxation reform.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—Indeed we do. An entire parasitic industry now exists to enable legitimately the high income earner, the self-employed and the well advised to minimise their tax liability. The 100 segmented markets we had throughout the world at the end of World War II are now coalescing into three major trading blocks. We are trying to survive increasingly in what is obviously a global economy. We rely on our export markets to improve our standard of living.Yet Australian manufacturers have to pay wholesale sales tax, payroll tax and other input costs and then compete in international markets against competitors who face no such input costs. It is not easy to increase your prices to offset input costs if you are competing in a global market. It is all very well in a closed economy, perhaps the sort of economy that the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) might wish us to us go back to. But the fact is that we can no longer simply afford luxuries in terms of input costs, inappropriate taxation, regulation, transport, energy, waterfront and other regulatory imposts and then try to find markets in the rest of the world. If we subscribe to those sorts of views my children have no hope of having a job.Only Australia, Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Swaziland apply wholesale sales tax without some form of broad based consumption tax. Australia currently has seven different rates of wholesale sales tax and, as you would be aware Mr Deputy Speaker, it applies to biscuits and orange juice, for example, but not to crayfish and to caviar.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Bizarre!RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—Bizarre, indeed. A company operating across Australia from one end to the other has to confront 42 federal and state taxes before any industry specific taxes are applied. Taxes paid by businesses depend on the type of structure of that business, whether it is a company, a trust or some other sort of arrangement. There is an enormous amount of energy and money invested in complex structures to minimise taxation.We also have an ageing population. In 1993 the age dependency ratio in Australia was 5.3:1. That means 5.3 Australians were between the ages of 15 and 64 for every person over the age 64 or under the age of 15. Over the next 40 years, according to the National Commission of Audit, that age dependency ratio will collapse to 2.6:1. In fact, the Commission of Audit also reported that over the next 40 years we will need to spend 10 per cent more of our GDP on the health and welfare costs of ageing above and beyond real growth from where we are currently at just to sustain the level of services which we currently provide for older people in health and aged care.If you had not seen it, the Retirement Incomes Modelling Taskforce report released several months ago estimates that over the next 33 years we will need to spend $32 billion in 1997 terms on the health costs of ageing alone. This, of course, is the equivalent to the drain in the Australian economy during the banana republic balance of payments crisis.We also have a cash economy. It is not something that is easy to estimate. Some of the estimates are that we are losing between $3 billion to $15 billion a year in lost revenues. There has also been a lot of talk amongst those who are opposed to a broad based consumption tax that such a broad based consumption tax would increase income disparity in Australia. Those who wish to support such an argument I direct to the work of David Johnson and colleagues of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1995. These economists from Victoria found that in the decade from 1984 to 1994 the bottom 10 per cent of income earning households in Australia went from spending 14.2 per cent of their disposable income on indirect taxes in 1984 to 22.6 per cent by 1994.In contrast the top 10 per cent of income earning households, a significant number of which are in my electorate by the way, went from spending 6.3 per cent of disposable income on indirect tax in 1984 down to 5.7 per cent in 1994. In other words, the poorest are spending a lot more of their disposable income on hidden indirect tax now than they were 10 years ago and the wealthiest are spending less. Also it is worth pointing out that the wealthiest 20 per cent in this country spend twice as much on food as the poorest. I suspect many of those people are in my electorate. The wealthiest 25 per cent spend twice as much on services, which as I said earlier are not currently being taxed—hotels, airlines, personal care and so on.The other report to which honourable members ought to have their attention drawn is the Electronic Commerce Taskforce report of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board which was released in March 1997. Amongst other things it found that a business may operate in a country without an established branch, that the digitisation of goods and services has blurred the distinction between the two and makes it very difficult to tax one and not the other. Digital transactions can be enormous whereas cash transfers are quite bulky. Also the techniques for deception are outstripping those for verification, despite whatever encryption surveillance that we try to implement and maintain.As I said in my introductory remarks, we also have a shrinking taxation base. We are moving away from durables, motor vehicles, beer, tobacco and excise. We are also taxing income still predominantly, but in a low inflation environment.Another aspect of the current inequities in the taxation system is the way in which the taxation system relates to and interacts with the social security system. If a single income family goes from earning $24,570 per year to $33,150 per year, they lose $6,435 in benefits. They pay $4,990 in tax. In other words, they are $1,270 per year, or $24 per week, worse off. That is, you earn $165 per week more but you lose $24 per week in rent assistance, child-care subsidies, minimum family payment, parenting allowance, newstart and a whole range of benefits.Another pressing reason for taxation reform is symptomatic of the argument between the Commonwealth and the states over Australian hospital financing agreements. Real reform in health care will not come in this country until there is a reform of state-Commonwealth relations. As long as the states are raising only 30 per cent of the money that they have to spend on health and education and essential services, it will be very difficult to reform the Australian health care system.Another point that needs to be made in relation to state-Commonwealth relations is that those who quite rightly have a concern for our reliance on gambling revenues—states in total are now raising $3.4 billion per year from gambling revenues—ought to understand that a lot of that is being driven by vertical fiscal imbalance, which will not be addressed, I believe, until we have meaningful reform in the tax system.Finally, to maintain a welfare system that condemns the poor to permanent dependency and which is financed on debt and asset sales is an abrogation of our responsibilities to the future of our country. The purpose of any taxation system ultimately is to finance the establishment and maintenance of social infrastructure; support and protect those in society with neither power nor influence; and to enable governments to strategically stimulate those sectors of the economy essential to growth and, with it, the creation of jobs. In essence, it is the poor who should ultimately be its greatest beneficiaries.20:12:004362Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—Those of us on this side of the House certainly welcome the chance to have our input on the budget and the way it has been received, particularly in the broader community. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) having inherited a high growth, low inflationary economy, an economy that in his own words he said was better than good in parts, I venture to suggest that the economy is now not in such great shape. Overall, we have domestic demand that is high. The position of the dollar could at best be described as precarious. We have a level of national savings which is disappointing, notwithstanding the fact that the government abolished the superannuation guarantee charge and replaced it effectively with a 15 per cent surcharge. In the Reserve Bank's own words, the current account could well this year approach six per cent of GDP. Of course, a conjunction of these fundamentals is indicative of possibly recessionary activity. As I said, domestic demand in this country remains very solid, adding to the problems of an import-export imbalance. As the Reserve Bank recently said in its semi-annual statement:The general pick-up in momentum (in the latter part of 1997) reflected stronger growth in most components of private demand, with strength particularly evident in consumer spending and housing construction . . . Early indications are that domestic demand has maintained momentum in the early part of 1998.. . . . . . . . .Moreover, the recent Federal Budget forecasts private final demand averaging 5% through 1998-99, with GNE at 4.75%. With GDP growth forecast at 3%, this represents a significant domestic imbalance.These other factors in recent years have seen rises in interest rates, such as those which occurred over the 1980s. Like some commentators, I believe that there is good reason to conclude that these rates may soon rise once again. Again, this is primarily due to the crux of Australia's economic problems, which continues to be difficulties with our current account deficit. The current account deficit in the mid-1980s was a product of largely external shock, as the Treasury does record in budget paper No. 1, wherein it states:The contribution of external factors to the rise in the current account deficit was dominant in the mid-1980s episode, with a large decline in the terms of trade and much slower growth in exports leading to a fall in domestic saving relative to investment and hence a deterioration in the trade balance.History does not appear to be on the side of those who may well argue that rates will not rise due to difficulties on the current account. Australia ran a budget surplus of two per cent of GDP in the late 1980s, which was significantly higher than the 1998-99 forecast. Yet at that time Australia encountered a current account of more than six per cent of GDP, leading most commentators at that stage to quite rightly question the application of the twin deficits theory. Again, strong similarities exist in previous current account blow-outs and the current circumstances. Indeed, the fundamentals of the Australian economy have largely remained unaltered. With regard to our chronic current account problem, we are, by and large, a small trading nation with a poor national savings record that cannot grow faster than those of our trading partners without what can only be described as a very undesirable overflow into the external account. In this respect, Australia's circumstances seem little different from the current account problems in each of the mid-1980s, late 1980s and mid-1990s.I referred earlier to the fact that our rate of national savings is particularly disappointing—and indeed it is. Improvements in public sector savings have in the overall been at the expense of private sector savings, including some $5 billion in fiscal drag and significant cuts to essential services such as health, education and child care. Private savings have fallen, as many households have been forced to pay for higher tax liabilities and higher household user charges from household savings. The 1998-99 budget forecasts a significant drop in the savings ratio from 4.7 per cent in 1996-97 to 2.75 per cent in 1998-99; one of the lowest ratios in the Western world. It is something to which I will return momentarily.Moreover, the abandonment of the previous government's plan for employee contributions in superannuation, albeit with a public co-payment and its replacement with a 15 per cent savings tax rebate, seems likely to produce an even weaker level of national savings. These trends are indeed confirmed by chart 1.12 of budget paper No. 1, which shows a decrease in national savings since 1996, with a rate stuck significantly below 20 per cent of our GDP. There are many economists who now expect recessions in several South-East Asian nations, plus sluggish growth in Japan. That will impact upon Australia to the point where our outlook similarly appears poor.If we grow faster than our Asian trading partners, the current account deficit will invariably emerge as a restraint. If we slow the economy in response to the current account, there is no doubt that unemployment will rise, as it has in the past, in the short to medium term.The Howard government's response to this is primarily to boast quite heartily about its surplus, while at the same time the current account has blown out from $18 billion in 1996-97 to $31 billion in 1998-99. As I alluded to earlier on, the Australian dollar is falling in response to pressure from what are largely foreign speculators, and of course we have consumption spending growing more quickly than national production. The growth in the rate of private investment is falling, as is the ratio, as I said, of household savings to disposable income at the rate previously alluded to, which, as I have already said, is currently one of the lowest rates of national savings in the Western world.But it is no good crowing about how a surplus will possibly fund tax cuts. The issue is not one of budget deficit nor budget surplus. The serious issue for Mr Howard to address is the current account blow-out. As Kenneth Davidson said in a recent Age article:Yet all the Government wants to talk about is how its surpluses will be available for tax cuts. It is as if the Budget deficits of the early `90s were the cause rather than the consequence of the 1991 recession.The truth is if the Budget deficit didn't blow out during a recession—thereby pumping more money into the economy—the recession would be far worse.If Howard is too blinded by ideology—Davidson goes on:and political point-scoring to see this in respect of the 1991 recession, he should at least be able to assess the relevance of the 1982 recession when he was Treasurer and the Budget deficit blow out, due to rising welfare spending and reduced tax receipts, helped revive the economy.Of course those recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s could easily have become economic catastrophes without the inbuilt stability provided by those budget deficit blow-outs during a recession to thrust more money into an ailing economy.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—They did!YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—The member for Leichhardt retorts that they were catastrophes and indeed they were. But, as you will see in a moment from my submission, had the Treasurer at that time adopted the same policies as the Treasurer is adopting now we would have ended up with a 1930s depression type situation.So the current account blow-out has worsened by what Davidson has called this huge amount of speculative capital washing around the globe which, as he said, particularly impacts upon East Asia and Australia. The current account, as he cites it, is the biggest problem confronting Australia today. As I alluded to in my opening remarks, if we are heading towards a recession then it has almost nothing to do with funding the budget. It is due largely to our exposure to foreign speculation, to our reliance on foreign debt to fund the current account deficit and not to any perceived budgetary financing problems.Labor left this government with a level of government debt and a budget deficit which was low by world standards. This government was left with the third lowest level of budget deficit as a percentage of GDP of any of the industrialised OECD nations. Similarly, it was also left with the third lowest level of public sector debt, again as a percentage of GDP, amongst the OECD economies. So is it any wonder that the Prime Minister in April 1996 described our economy as better than good in parts.RW5NELSONDr Nelson—What were the lowest two?YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—I do not know what the lowest two were. In the early 1990s we went from a budget surplus to a deficit by and large, at that time under a Labor government, because of a worldwide recession. Budget deterioration is a natural corollary of a recession because we have negative growth, we have cuts to revenues and we have increasing unemployment benefits to pay from government expenditure. That leads to an automatic budget deficit blow-out. Again, as I alluded to earlier, this is known as the automatic stabiliser effect in terms of Keynesian economic jargon. It helps minimise the recession by limiting the fall in demand during the recession. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) seems to believe in pre-Keynesian economics. He criticises Labor for the deficit and the consequently increased government debt in the context of a recession. He apparently believes, along with those like the member for Leichhardt, that Labor should have reacted to the recession by cutting expenditure or increasing taxes to keep the budget in surplus. This is an obvious consequence of what they are saying. This is 1930s thinking. It caused a depression so deep and disastrous that many of our fathers and mothers in many ways never recovered from it. As the former Treasurer, the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), recently submitted in his appropriation bill speech to the House on 25 May this year—again, this might be listened to by the member for Leichhardt—had Labor followed the now Treasurer's policies in the early 1990s we would have had a far deeper recession or a depression with much more unemployment. But because Labor followed a more sensible policy, including stimulatory action through the budget, the recession was relatively minimised but at the cost of a turnaround in the budget outcome from an underlying surplus of some two per cent of GDP to a deficit of four per cent of GDP by 1995-96. Of course, at that time, with the economy recovering strongly, the underlying deficit was reduced to two per cent of GDP. So at that time Labor was not only reducing the deficit but also bringing it back into surplus in a way which was largely consistent with its objective of keeping economic growth high and rapidly reducing unemployment.What this budget clearly shows is that even with no policy change whatsoever after the last election the underlying budget balance would have fallen to $2.7 billion in 1998-99 or half a per cent of GDP. Far from Labor's policies being this endless cycle of deficit, spending and debt, as the Treasurer continually claims, our policies, even with no further budget tightening measures, would have reduced the balance to at least half a per cent of GDP this year. Of course, it would have been reduced further because we would not have adopted this slash and burn approach in terms of the cuts that this government has so harmed the economy with, especially in its first two budgets.In concluding, the current account is the issue. It is not the budget surplus or deficit. The sooner the government stops crowing about fortuitously obtained surpluses and focuses on the main game the sooner we will tack away from the recessionary course that we are on. It is with those words that I conclude and certainly commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's amendment to the House.20:27:004365Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—First of all, in rising to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1998-99, I would like to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Costello) for delivering a budget that certainly gives all Australians the benefits of a very sound economic management and also delivers initiatives that will bring very significant benefits to regional Australia and, in particular, my electorate of Leichhardt. I can recall that it was not so long ago—about two and a half years—when we first came into government that we gave a commitment to the Australian people that we would be looking within our third year at delivering a budget in surplus and I would suggest that we have been able to fulfil that commitment in full.The member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton) I note was suggesting, in looking at the 1998-99 budget, that we are in trouble economically. I would suggest to him that in March 1996 we were absolutely haemorrhaging. To suggest that Australia had to go into a deficit because the rest of the world was doing so and we had to follow suit is a bit like suggesting that we should be now tipping ourselves into the same economic position as Indonesia or South Korea. I think that is not really a good idea and certainly not an option that I would like to pursue for myself or, for that matter, my family or the country generally.I think it is also important to acknowledge the significance of our $2.7 billion surplus. It is certainly good news for all Australians. There have been some on the other side and some of those that are pushing the more extreme social agenda—I include my friends from the Democrats in that—that are suggesting absolutely dismayed that we have made a profit. They are saying, `That $2.7 billion should go into some new-found social program.'They do not realise that it is all about paying back some of the debt. Any of them that had any fundamental business principle would understand that at the end of the day if you accumulate a debt somewhere along the line you have to start to pay it back. To suggest that it is a dreadful thing to have a bit of a surplus and you should be spending on something overlooks the fact that you forget completely that you still have a hell of a lot of interest that is eating away at your capital. It is just sound business practice to reduce that debt as quickly as possible.I suggest that this surplus will deliver certainty and confidence right across the board to families and Australian business. That is something that we should be all very comfortable with. When Labor left office in March 1996, there was a $96 billion debt, representing 20 per cent of our GDP. That is very significant. Our current forecasts, with sound economic management, suggests that we will be down to about 10 per cent of GDP. That is a manageable level, I suggest, by the year 2001 or 2002. If we have the mandate to continue on with the sale of the balance of Telstra, we will be looking at levels down to 1.5 per cent of GDP. They are levels that have not been enjoyed in this country for decades. It will certainly give us the opportunity to have a new era of prosperity for our kids. That is something that we all should be focusing on.Another very significant issue is that we have pulled back this deficit without increasing taxes. This is very important. This is the first government that I am aware of that has, for a full term, not increased any taxes and dealt with these problems that we had when we came into government. Interest rates, as I said, are the lowest since 1970. Home loans interest rates are at 6.7 per cent. Our overdraft rates are at 7.7 per cent. They are very low. Inflation is the lowest since the 1960s and forecast to remain in that two to three per cent band in the foreseeable future. Certainly it is not the gloom and doom that has been suggested by the other side. It is a very positive and a very comfortable outlook. I suggest to you, given the problems in our northern neighbours, if we had not taken this action, we would have been really in serious problems.The unemployment level is another good one. It is very interesting. It is at 7.9 per cent. It is interesting to note that when we came in in March for the first six months there was an increase. There was certainly an increase. When you look at the graphs after that six months, you find a consistent drop. They said we would never go below eight per cent again, but we have. We are down to 7.9 per cent. That is quite an achievement. That increase in the first six months, if you look at it, is all about those that were on the merry-go-round called Working Nation. They were coming off those programs. These were the ones that were training and retraining and retraining but there was nothing to put them into. As that program was winding up in that six months, those people were coming back on to the unemployment queues. Suddenly, good responsible policy started to click in and we have this good steady decline.Certainly it is not as sharp as one would like to see it, but it is certainly very significant given that we were told, `You will never go below eight per cent.' That is absolutely commendable. We have created 280,000 new jobs since we have got in. I am sure we will continue to foster that sort of job growth with the economic policies that we are putting into place. Businesses and families can now plan with certainty. Interest rate cuts, given the more disposable income, are cutting years off their mortgage.The budget has helped protect us, as I said, from the worst of the Asian crisis. Australia's growth economic forecast in spite of the Asian crisis is still predicted at about three per cent of GDP. That is the highest in the region. It was the lowest in the region.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Lowest in Australia's history.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—Adopting Labor's policy, we would be down there in the minuses. It is a great positive. I think it is also interesting to note the reaction of the press with regard to the budget. I could suggest to you that I read some of the comments from our lesser papers such as the Australian , the Sydney Morning Herald or the Age . But I will read something that is quite significant and that really knows all about these issues. It is called the Cairns Post —an excellent paper. In an editorial that they printed on 13 May it is stated:Commendably, the Government resisted the inevitable pre-election temptation to make this Budget a heartily big-spending one aimed at buttering up the voters.In resisting this temptation, Treasurer Peter Costello has made fiscal prudence an election issue by establishing clearly the Government's credentials as a responsible economic manager.By turning a $10.3 billion Budget deficit inherited from the previous Labor government into an estimated $2.7 billion surplus in less than three years—I did not say that there was a deficit; the Cairns Post has also admitted that there was a surplus. They got their information from Gareth Evans. Gareth Evans told them that. It is amazing. This is a third party endorsement of this, confirming it.The Howard government has laid down the gauntlet in no uncertain terms to opposition leader Kim Beazley. The newspaper goes on to say a bit about Kim, but we do not need to dwell on that tonight. It continues:All in all, Mr Costello has good reason to be pleased with his efforts last nightI say to the member for Bradford (Dr Nelson) that it is absolutely commendable. We should be very proud of it. We have to be pleased as well. Time does not permit me to go on with comments of the lesser newspapers. I will continue, if I can, to comment on specific programs. Road funding in our electorate will deliver $334 million to Queensland in additional funding; $11.06 million will be reinstated in the black spot program. We have done very well from the black spot program. There has been cooperation with my local man, Mr Tom Pyne, who is a life member of the Labor Party. We worked very well together. We have secured over one-sixth of the entire state's allocation of black spot funding. There has been the upgrading of the Cook Highway to numerous works around the city. There have been bikeways, roundabouts, the funding of Bloomfield Road. The funds provided have covered a very significant portion of that funding. Recently, we had another $400,000 go to Mareeba and Mount Molloy to do roads there. Infrastructure has been major.We have had great initiatives with health and programs such as Meals on Wheels, which I am very actively involved in. I still go very regularly whenever time permits. They are getting money as well, which is desperately needed. This is keeping people at home. The money goes into multipurpose centres. This has been a major problem in our electorate because people have been forced to move these from these little communities into Cairns and places such as that. Of course, they break away from their community. Now they are able to provide something within their community. A good example of that is the Douglas Shire nursing home steering committee which looks like for the first time in six years getting themselves a new nursing home. I think it is fantastic. That is through our network.I will save what else I have here for later. I will say in finishing that it is a great budget. As the Treasurer said, we are back in the black. We are back on track. We are well on our way to paying off Labor's legacy of debt. I take great pride in the expectation that we will continue to reduce that debt. We will pay our own way so that when our kids start to take over the reins of this wonderful country, they can focus on the future rather than be burdened by the excesses of their forefathers. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber.20:40:004367Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I certainly agree with the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) that it is indeed a wonderful country. It is most disappointing, though, that it has such an unimaginative, narrowly focused government temporarily in control of its affairs. One can understand, I suppose, when one looks at the budget and some of the underlying bases of the budget, why they are slinking off so rapidly to an election before some of the messages of the budget really sink into the community.It is a budget really of no hope in a whole range of areas. No hope on jobs: fundamentally the only way to create real sustainable jobs is by rapid economic growth. We have a budget that is premised on a reduction from the average rates of economic growth achieved under Labor of 4.3 per cent to three per cent in 1998-1999 and no guarantees that that rate in fact is going to be sustained. Unemployment is stuck at eight per cent and is probably going to rise. Ironically, the very policies of lower growth that the government is pursuing are very likely to result, over the relatively short term, in the budget going back into the red because of the sorts of fiscal stabilisers that my colleague the member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton) referred to in his contribution. The reality is that the government is intent on talking down this economy's capacity, this country's capacity, and that is going to bring in those fiscal stabilisers in a negative way. There is no evidence really in the budget of fire proofing us, as is claimed by leaders of the government, from the problems of Asia. We have a current account deficit for the 1998-99 year blowing out to $31 billion, which is over five per cent of GDP. That is almost double the level of current account deficit as was the situation in 1996-97. So on those macro-measures, one can understand, as I said, why the government is slinking off to an election before some of the grim messages of this budget sink in.It is a budget that really presents no hope for security for Australian people. We have a government that makes a virtue out of sacking workers. We have a budget that is continuing to attack the economic security of the Australian work force through its industrial relations approach and its attack upon organised labour. So how one sees that fitting into any vision of a secure Australia defies my capacity to understand.We have a government that is intent on introducing an unfair, regressive tax proposal in the very near future. We are seeing a whole range of cuts to the most vulnerable in our society, whether they be the aged or whether they be families with young children. It is a budget that presents no hope to the Australian people in terms of health care and the crisis in our hospitals.We are a country that ought to be the clever country. We often talk about this country's future as being based upon brain power and our capacity to harness that as a real competitive strength of this country. But this is a government that is determined to slash education. Australia is experiencing a six per cent fall in total education expenditure in the period 1996-97 to the year 2001-2002; a massive 20.6 per cent fall in higher education expenditures over the same period; a 3.2 per cent fall in expenditure on vocational education and training; and a 1.3 per cent fall in schools expenditure between 1998-99 and 2001-2002. So how that fits in with any vision of this country as a clever country defies logic as far as I am concerned. We have seen the slashing that has occurred in the government's support for essential research and development activities to underpin our manufacturing future and our capacity to add value to this country's production and exports along with a range of other cuts in industry programs.The other huge problem of this government's lack of vision is in the foreign affairs area where Australia has traditionally been a country that has been seen to be able to box well above its weight in world affairs. Yet we have a government—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—We fight like Joe Bugner.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—That is right. We seem to have a government that is intent on winding back so much. The budget confirms, for example, an abysmal record in foreign aid following slashing in its two earlier budgets. Overseas development assistance is at an all-time low of 0.27 per cent of gross national product. I noted the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) the other day where he was offering Pakistan an increase, a doubling, of its aid to the grand sum of $6 million if that country did not respond to India's disgraceful nuclear testing. Needless to say Minister Downer's inducements were not adequate for that purpose.But we do face a very dangerous world because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons that has been evidenced so dramatically in recent weeks with India and Pakistan. The Indian explosions and the flouting of international norms of behaviour that those explosions represented were quite dangerous not only because of the simple act of exploding nuclear devices but because of the configuration of those devices. A thermonuclear device was amongst the devices used as well as low yield devices which lend themselves to tactical battlefield use. India also foreshadowed further developments in its missile delivery system.So we do live in a very dangerous world and one where we do need this government to build very strongly upon the achievements of the former government in terms of establishing Australia's credentials in world forums, boxing well above our weight on issues like the success we achieved in the comprehensive test ban treaty. That situation is now so clearly being threatened by the actions of India and Pakistan. We recognise that the security situation of both India and Pakistan is complex, but scarcely desperate in either case. The great power ambitions that India demonstrated and presented as the rationale for its actions really ought to be strenuously condemned. India's own citizens and the citizens of its neighbours would be much better served by focusing on achieving social benefits from economic growth and conferring those benefits on its own desperately poor citizens rather than engaging in the sorts of activities it has in recent weeks. We need to demonstrate sanctions, real and effective, on both India and Pakistan. Certainly the discussions that occurred last week in this House with the Pakistani parliamentary delegation prior to their early departure from the country showed that Pakistani opinion was certainly very strongly of the view, prior to their own tests, that world reaction in terms of real and effective pain on India for flouting international norms was not being perceived as being particularly strong, and they were particularly critical of the actions of Russia, France and the United Kingdom in that respect.It is fundamentally important that the world community send a very strong message to both India and Pakistan in relation to their actions because there are other neighbouring countries that are going to be sorely tempted, if the reaction is not strenuous, to consider seriously their own nuclear options. One only has to look at Iran, for example, which is a neighbour of Pakistan and has a range of security difficulties in its relationships with Pakistan, particularly the ongoing tragedy in Afghanistan, to realise just how important it is for countries such as Australia to exercise very considerable leverage in world affairs. Frankly, the aid budget that we have is a sham as a minor ingredient in that and really shows, as I said before, a government with very limited vision about what this country can achieve.We need to use our moral influence and our capacity to influence to play the sort of role that we have in the past in world forums on non-proliferation matters. We need to use our influence with nuclear powers to recommence the strategic arms limitation process between Russia and the United States. We need, as Minister Downer, in fairness to him, acknowledged today in question time, to play a role in encouraging further work on the fissile materials cut-off treaty. We need to be taking real steps on biological weapons. However, we need to not lose sight of the importance of the economic component of that.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 8.50 to 9.03 p.m.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—As I was saying before we were interrupted by pressing matters downstairs, this is a budget that is characterised in its macro-economics by a pretty small-minded, inadequate view about Australia's future and certainly in its approach to foreign affairs, to the extent that that could be reflected in a budget. It is the same sort of small, narrow-minded view of Australia's position in the world that characterises this government and which shines through on the budget.In the very limited time that I have left, I want to turn quickly to an area of the budget that relates very much to Victoria, especially my part of Victoria, the western suburbs of Melbourne. Those issues relate to pollution and waste matters. The Victorian government is currently engaged in an exercise of extraordinary environmental vandalism by approving three toxic waste dumps in the western suburbs of Melbourne. One is in my electorate at Niddrie, and the others are at Werribee and Tullamarine. There is a real irony in this situation where the Victorian government has its hand out for Natural Heritage Trust funds from the Commonwealth yet it is creating a situation where the leaching of toxic materials out of these tips into Melbourne's river system and Port Phillip Bay will very much undermine the whole rationale, as I understand it, for the Natural Heritage Trust.Australia's total pollution abatement and control expenditure is only about one per cent of GDP. The overwhelming proportion of that expenditure comes from private sources, state and local government. Less than one per cent of environmental expenditure is carried out by the Commonwealth. That low trend is continuing in this 1998-99 budget. I am told that only 1.5 per cent of the Natural Heritage Trust is to be expended on pollution and waste related issues. The environment protection budget has been reduced by the extraordinary amount of 57 per cent between 1997-98 and 1998-99.There is a range of quite specific measures the Commonwealth ought to be undertaking in relation to this important area of public policy. The national pollutant inventory is far too narrow. It does not involve waste transfer activity. It does not involve the registration of emissions to sewers, for example. There is a lack of funding from this government in the enforcement of Australia's international commitments to stop hazardous waste trade internationally.There is a lack of funding for further work on the management of persistent organic pollutants. In the past, the Commonwealth has supported what is called the ANZECC schedule waste management process through an agreement with New Zealand which has sought to develop and plan for the management of old organochlorine chemicals.Nonetheless, people in the western suburbs of Melbourne are only too starkly aware of the real situation, against a background of the Victorian state government engaging in outrageous activities by forcing local councils to issue planning permits for toxic waste dumps in residential areas. But that focuses attention on the Commonwealth's pitiful actions in relation to these important issues of pollution control. At a time when the Commonwealth is claiming to be capable of performing some sort of role in that respect through the Natural Heritage Trust, it seems to me that this is an area of public policy which the Commonwealth ought to pay very close attention to.21:06:004370Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 provides me with the opportunity to reflect on the positive effect responsible economic management has had on my electorate of Eden-Monaro over the past 2¼ years. But allow me first to remind the House where we actually started.Recently I was talking to a group of small business people in my electorate. I gave them this scenario. I said, `There is a business for sale. The business has a turnover of about $1.3 million. The business has experienced a loss on average of $140,000 per year for the previous five years. This business also is servicing a debt of about $900,000.' So I said to them, `Would you look at a business with a turnover of $1.3 million, losing $140,000 a year every year for the last five years, and also with a debt, an overdraft, to service of about $900,000?' Overwhelmingly the business people knew straight away that there was a real problem there and they probably would not even look at it, let alone go into any sort of negotiation to buy it.But that is what we bought back in 1996, exactly that: Australia Inc, or the Australian government budget situation. That effectively is what we bought, translated into small business terms. Also recently I was talking with some seniors. I said to them, `How would you like a family situation such as this: income of about $35,000, a family having to take out an additional personal loan of about $2,500 every year for the past five years and also with a Bankcard bill of about $25,000?' I said to them, `Put yourself in that sort of family situation: income $35,000, going to the bank each year for the past five years and saying, "Can I take out an extra personal loan of $2,500?" and also having to service a Bankcard debt of $25,000.' Most of these people, who were quite senior in the community, were horrified at that sort of scenario where they could have relatives, or themselves be, in that sort of circumstance. But that also is what we took over—the family called Australia back in 1996.Eden-Monaro is basically a mixture of small business and families. If you look at the sort of make-up that we have right throughout Eden-Monaro, that is the scenario really, the small business, family situation that we had. By winning the 1996 election, we were forced to buy that small business that I just detailed, and we were forced to take over that family situation.Now we find with the bringing down of the budget a couple of weeks ago, three budgets later, that in fact we have turned that small business that I mentioned around, from experiencing that enormous loss year after year, into a profit making venture. We will actually make a profit this year. So within three years we have turned a loss making situation into a profit making one for a business that had been losing so much year after year for five years. This is the sort of result that no small business person would ever have contemplated when they looked at that scenario that I painted before. That has not been done just by clicking the fingers. That has been done through a lot of hard work by a lot of people. But what has it done to those small businesses and families in my electorate of Eden-Monaro as a result?For small business it has meant that interest rates are now down to the lowest they have been for 30 years. That is an incredibly significant thing that people just cannot lose sight of. Most small businesses that are out there now that were around five or six years ago still remember the enormous interest rates that they paid, well over 20 per cent. I remember paying 21.75 per cent on my overdraft in 1990. That was a pretty hefty overdraft for a small business employing 20 to 25 people and it is something that I do not think I will ever forget in my whole life. You have to have experienced that. You have to have been in business, paying that sort of interest rate, servicing an overdraft and still trying to keep all your employees in place.I managed to keep all my employees in place, but I still have the ramifications of that huge debt back then; so have many small businesses right throughout Australia and certainly right throughout my electorate. They do not forget that situation at all. They remember those interest rates. We talk about small business rates getting up to 20.5. But that was the baseline of it. A lot of people were paying—and I remember, as I said, paying 21.75—even more than that.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—A lot of farmers were.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—A lot of farmers particularly, because they were seen as high risk, so the banks loaded on another couple of per cent. They are still trying to pay back that debt.So one of the best things out of all of this budgetary situation that we have achieved over the last three years is to have brought those interest rates down to that sort of figure. That has made a significant difference to them. They know what that means.The industrial relations situation that we have also brought about for small business in those 2¼ years since we won the election in 1996 is also a significant matter for small business. We need to make sure that that legislation that the Senate keeps knocking back in relation to businesses with fewer than 15 employees goes ahead. For families what this has meant—getting the budget back into surplus, paying off debt—is lower interest rates for them on their home mortgages. Probably one of the most significant aspects of a family is working on getting down that mortgage and buying the family home.We are looking at interest rates at the lowest they have been for well over 30 years. Interest rates in the housing market have come down significantly more than the Reserve Bank rates have come down because there is competition there. Now, through the financial changes that we are making, we are seeing competition getting into the small business sector and also those interest rates coming down further.The significance of both those issues for small business and for families is glossed over far too much. What it has meant in an electorate like mine is that we have seen now companies making decisions; they are feeling confident, with the interest rates down now for a couple of years, about going into an investment situation.We have the Bega cheese people down there putting something like $20 million into a packaging plant to expand their export markets. They have realised the opportunities that are out there and they have gone from earning zero export dollars five years ago to something like about $15 million a year. So they have decided to make that investment because they are confident about the situation with interest rates, inflation and the stability of economics right across Australia.We see also companies like the Cooma export abattoir which has just opened recently. The old domestic abattoir closed and we have seen it replaced with a significant investment, an enormous investment. Once again, companies are making these sorts of investments because they feel secure about the future, they feel secure about committing their shareholders to loans at reasonable interest rates, not the outrageous interest rates we have had.These ramifications have gone right throughout my electorate. As I said, the electorate runs on small business and families. In the short time I have left, I will briefly also mention the timber industry, which is a significant industry within Eden-Monaro. I see the shadow minister for resources, the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), opposite me. He visited the timber industry in my electorate last Friday. We are in the middle of an RFA—regional forest agreement—which it is so necessary to get right for that whole south-east corner. He would have seen the devastation that has occurred over the last 10 years through policies which really did not give anything to the people of the south-east of New South Wales, the people of Eden and Bombala. Bombala has really copped it over the last 10 years.Export woodchip licences were taken away by the previous Labor government, and I do not think many people in this parliament understand the devastation that caused through that south-east corner. We got those export licences back within six months but, unfortunately, the damage was already done in the time before we got into government to fix up that problem. It is crucial that we fix up the further problem through a reasonable regional forest agreement.Unfortunately, the state government is not helping the matter. I see today a leaked proposal by the environment minister in New South Wales, Pam Allen, to create an extra 52 national parks before the next state election, to pay off the people in Sydney, it seems. This is part of the problem we had in the RFA process there. The New South Wales government pre-empted the scientific work and declared something like 90,000-odd hectares of national park part way through. The RFA process is supposed to be science based, not politically based. But the New South Wales government decided to put in these national parks before the science was done and the socioeconomic studies were completed. They did not worry about the people of Eden and Bombala and the south-east; they just did what was necessary for the people in the concrete jungles of Sydney. That is what they did through this process. They pre-empted the whole process. It will now make it very difficult to get a decent decision out of it.I will leave my comments there for this evening. I say in conclusion that the appropriation bills are good bills. We have seen no tax increases in the last three budgets. That has not been done in a long time. We have seen a reduction of debt, and pressure off interest rates. All of that is good news for small businesses and families in the electorate of Eden-Monaro.21:17:004373Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I have put on record both in this place and in the main chamber itself that I regard as inappropriate the referral of the appropriation bills to the Main Committee. But, given the referral of these bills to this committee and given the agreement that we will all be briefer than usual, as shadow minister for resources and energy I will restrict my remarks tonight to one particular aspect of the budget as it relates to the resources and energy portfolio. Resources and energy is part of the primary industries and energy portfolio. The particular subprogram that I wish to refer to is contained within the appropriations of the Australian Geological Survey Organisation—or AGSO as it is known in the trade.If you had reached for the budget papers at 7.30 on the relevant Tuesday night and you had read the press releases put out by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), you would have been forgiven for being left with the impression that AGSO had received $36.3 million additional funds for geoscientific work. That was the gloss that was put on it by the minister for resources. An amount of $36.3 million for geoscientific work is a good thing and I laud that. But, when you look at the detail, you will see that it is proposed to be expended not just for offshore petroleum—for oil and gas and condensate—but also for mineral areas onshore in conjunction with the states and the Northern Territory and the mapping accord. There are also proposals for exploration activity offshore within Australia's exclusive economic zone.The sting in the AGSO budget, as in the resources and energy budget, is in the tail. What the minister does not tell you in his press releases, and what you need to read the fine print of the budgets papers to understand, is that on the one side you see the great lauding of this $36.3 million extra funding over four years but, on the other side, you discover that the minister has, without any fanfare, announcement or detail, initiated a review of AGSO. In advance of the establishment of the review, without anyone knowing what the terms of reference are and without anyone seeing what the detail of that review will be, it has already been predetermined that it will save $11 million per year for three years. That is $33 million over three years. If you work on the basis that you get $11 million per year, and you assume that that is recurrent, that is $44 million over four years. The sleight of hand and the sting in the tail is that the Commonwealth is actually proposing to spend less on geoscientific work through AGSO over the next four years than is currently the case.So we have two things which need to be the subject of criticism in this area. Firstly, we have an unannounced, undetailed review of AGSO, the Commonwealth's geoscientific survey agency. In advance of the detail of that review and in advance of the review itself, the minister has already determined that $33 million over three years will be taken out of AGSO funding. In the context of an alleged $36.3 million increase over four years, it is a net loss to AGSO.The second subject of great criticism is that this is precisely that point in the cycle where a Commonwealth effort on precompetitive geoscientific work would actually be helpful. It would be helpful because it is now precisely that point in the cycle where exploration activity and effort are required for the next phase of minerals and petroleum resource development in Australia.I might make as the starting point a quote from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in the House at question time on 28 May 1997 last year when he said that investment and mining in this country had been brought `virtually to a halt'. That was the assertion of the Prime Minister in May last year. What the Prime Minister did not tell the House on that occasion was that, at precisely that point in the cycle, if you looked at capital investment in mining and exploration activity you found that capital expenditure had been up 13 per cent to nearly $7 billion since 1992, that exploration expenditure had been up nine per cent to nearly $2 billion since 1992 and that at that time ABARE had forecast that new capital expenditure would be up 25 per cent to over $9 billion by the 1996-97 financial year.The relevant ABARE study at that point in the cycle, the March 1997 ABARE Outlook 1997 study, said:Over the past four years new capital expenditure in mining has increased at an average of 13 percent a year in real terms, reaching $6.7 billion in 1995-96. New investment in the metal processing sector has also been rising, up 54 per cent in 1995-96 to $2.2 billion. Similarly, the resources supporting future minerals and energy sector growth have been sustained by exploration expenditure, which has increased by an average of 9 per cent in real terms over the past four years, reaching $1.7 billion in 1995-96.In 1996-97, new capital expenditure in mining is forecast to increase by 25% to $9.2 billion.So, two months before the Prime Minister had said things had virtually ground to a halt, the forecasts for capital expenditure or investment activity in petroleum and minerals resources were said by ABARE to be quite healthy. More recent statistics, such as the ABS December quarter private new capital expenditure release, which came out in late February this year, showed a 5.7 per cent real increase in mining industry investment. What we saw in the December quarter figures was that actual capital expenditure in mining had increased nearly 30 per cent in the year to the December quarter and the trend estimate for capital expenditure had been up for at least the last six quarters, and the expected future capital expenditure was also up.The most recent ABS figures on private new capital expenditure for the March quarter, which came out last week on Thursday, 28 May—a year, almost to the day, after the Prime Minister said to the House that investment in mining activity had virtually ground to a halt—state:In trend terms, the rate of growth of total new capital expenditure (at average 1989-90 prices) has been slowing over the past three quarters. Mining continues the pattern of strong growth evident over the past two and a half years.Page 3 of the ABS release states:Growth rates for expenditure by the Mining industry have been reasonably strong over the last ten quarters (between 2.8% and 7.7%). The current estimate of $2,594m is $516m (24.8%) higher than for March quarter 1997.Bankers Trust, when commenting on the ABS release, said:Investment in the mining sector rose by 3.1% following a 2.6% rise in the December quarter—continuing the pattern of solid investment within the sector. Investment in other selected industries . . . was flat, following a rise of 4.7% in the December quarter. In the past year, investment has risen by 2.3%, 15.7% and 0% in the manufacturing, mining and other selected industries sectors.So, in the past year, according to Bankers Trust, investment in the manufacturing sector has risen by 2.3 per cent and investment in mining has risen by 15.7 per cent.I detail those capital investment figures to make the point that often it is said by some, including the Prime Minister in May last year, that investment in this industry has ground to a halt. The capital investment figures belie that. That is not to say that there is not a range of issues or challenges which face the minerals and petroleum industries. There are a number of those which are worth drawing attention to. There has been a long-term decline in the commodity price cycle just about across the board so far as Australia's mineral resources are concerned. That is not just the cycle; it is the long-term trend. There has also been a long-term decline in the profits that the minerals resources sector in particular is making from invested capital.Those capital investment figures in some respects give the lie to the old notion that capital follows profit. If you look at the Minerals Council of Australia and Coopers and Lybrand study, which comes out annually, that calculates that effectively, if you analyse the profit dividend in the minerals resources sector, the average from 1991 to now has been about seven per cent. In the last year, the profit on the invested capital was three per cent. For all the trouble that the industry has, it might just as well give the investment to you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that we would be smart enough to work out that US treasury bonds and the exchange rate would give a better return than that for none of the problems. So you have a long-term potential decline in the profit made from the investment. You also have a long-term growing disinterest in resources as a vehicle for investment by institutional investors. That is reflected in that declining profit share that I have referred to.There is also a bad market sentiment to the management of some Australian resource companies in some sectors of the industries. We have seen difficulties in gold following the RBA sell-off. We have the obvious difficulty so far as our export markets are concerned of the Asian difficulties and problems. So there is a range of long-term cyclical and structural difficulties which face our minerals and resources sector.I was pleased to see that on 26 May the Minerals Council released a statement to coincide with its annual seminar and annual dinner which it holds in Canberra. Its executive director, Dick Wells, on behalf of the industry itself, released a statement which in part said:The increase in competitive pressures resulting from the emergence of new low cost mineral deposits in other regions of the world, the growth in minerals supply from new sources opened up by global economic and political reforms places continued downward pressure on world commodity prices and changes the geographic flow of project funds and exploration dollars.What is Mr Wells drawing attention to here? He is drawing attention to the fact that the chill wind of international competition is now very fiercely facing Australia's minerals and petroleum resource sectors. The competition for investment in the resource dollar is now a global competition and Australia needs to be up to the mark in that global competition. But the challenges are many and include the ones that I have referred to. Mr Wells goes on to say:The ongoing long-term trend to lower commodity prices has meant mineral producers have had to continually improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs in order to maintain the profit margin necessary for the funding of additional developments and exploration programs.The minerals industry understands that it does not operate in a vacuum and all that it does must occur in the context of the prevailing global and national economic circumstances. . . So what Mr Wells is drawing attention to, to use his words, is the need to maintain the profit margins necessary for the funding of additional development and exploration programs. He is drawing attention to the need for Australia to continue its international competitiveness in the minerals and petroleum resources sectors in general and minerals resources in particular. What does that focus on?If you work on the basis that in the end capital funds follow exploration funds, you have got the chill wind of international competition, you have got the opening up of other countries which have previously been under exploited or under explored. You have a whole range of world class ore bodies being discovered in other countries which have not previously been kicked over by explorers. So at precisely that point in the cycle where the Commonwealth could well profit in the future by an additional extra effort in geoscientific survey and exploration activity, to provide the private sector with the best basis for proceeding with its exploration activities in the future, we find the Commonwealth doing exactly the reverse of that which it should be doing. Rather than a net increase in funds for AGSO, a net increase in funds for geoscientific work at the Commonwealth level, what we find is the Commonwealth denuding those funds and reducing them.So, as I return to my starting point, that needs to be the subject of strong criticism in two respects. Firstly, it is the wrong point of the cycle to be withdrawing funds from geoscientific work when the Commonwealth should be increasing funds in that area; and, secondly, to predetermine in advance an undisclosed review is bad ministerial conduct and bad administrative conduct.21:32:004376Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I rise with some pride to support the government's budget of 1998-99 and particularly the direction in which it is certainly intended to travel. I want to make some comments on the position that we see ourselves in. I have listened with some interest to the contributions by previous members in this debate. I note in particular, I dare say, the position that has been taken by Labor Party members, in particular the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the former Treasurer, who made a contribution to this debate and went to some lengths to explain the Labor Party position on the budgetary situation.I have to say that, while I respect the member for Gellibrand, I think he was really saying that the former government was heading towards a position where it would have got the budget into surplus. He said, `We would have taken it gradually. We do not believe that this government is going in the right direction. We think the government is going too quickly. We were heading in that direction but we were going to take it in a gradual form.'Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you look very closely at the deficit situation of the previous government over a period of time, it was in fact adding up to a serious situation as far as Australian government debt was concerned. It was escalating at a very fast rate. There is no doubt that the electorate said in the last election that they wanted something done about this. They believed that there needed to be a reduction in this debt that was being driven and that we had to draw it back into perspective.In fact, I asked the Treasurer (Mr Costello) a question on notice some time ago about how Australian government debt had built up over a period of time. It was very interesting to hear the reply from the Treasurer because he made it very clear that before the Whitlam era Australia had a very low level of Commonwealth government debt. In fact, it was a very small percentage of GDP. It was during the Whitlam era that Australian debt started to escalate at quite a dramatic rate. It was during the Hawke-Keating era that it really took off to where we have today a government debt close to $100 billion.I have been in business, I understand business and I know that all businesses carry some debt. But it depends on the amount of debt that you carry as to whether you can be a viable business. There is no doubt in my mind that when you start to pay something between $3 billion and $4 billion a year in interest you are no longer a viable business. That is the position the Australian government found itself in. There is no doubt in my mind that this government had a responsibility to start to rein in that debt and to put the Australian people in a position where they did not have to pay those exorbitant amounts of interest and where they could use the money that was saved from that for the services that were absolutely necessary to the Australian community.I have heard with some interest over the last few months the debate that has raged in this parliament, in particular from members of the opposition who have criticised the government for the winding back of some programs that they believe to be absolutely essential in our community. I dare say that members on our side of parliament probably see from time to time that some of these programs are vital. But if you do not have the money to pay for them, then you have to look very closely at where you expend the money that you have available.The real problem is that such a profligate government preceded us. We are in a situation where we have to now draw back and say to ourselves, `We must consolidate our position before we can continue to fund some of the services that all of us might see as being fairly important in our community.' So therefore I see this budget as a very important budget. We are back in the black. That is a term I suppose that has been used fairly generally in this particular debate, but it is a very important point because we are back in surplus. It is a long time since Australia has been in surplus and we have a lot of ground to make up to draw back the debt that we have at the present time to put ourselves in a viable position.One of the points I noted in the Treasurer's speech related to his comments on the sale of Telstra. I have heard since then some of the comments that have accrued from both the Labor Party and others to the sale of Telstra. I find some of those comments hypocritical because, having only been two years in this parliament, I certainly did hear some of the comments about the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and the sale of Qantas. There are some hypocritical statements that we have heard in the past from the Labor Party about those particular sales.One thing I want to make clear as a business person is that I have always believed that if you sell an asset then you have to reduce debt or you have to buy another asset. That is something that has never been very high in the Labor Party's priorities. In fact, in both those sales—the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and the sale of Qantas—the Labor Party used the assets in the recurrent budget and that is an absolute disgrace. It is like someone selling their own house and spending the assets, or the money accrued from those assets in one year. That is exactly what was done by the Labor Party, that is exactly what the Labor Party did in those particular sales, and that is an absolute disgrace.The Labor Party vehemently opposes the sale of Telstra. I put to you that some of the arguments that they put forward stand some questioning. If you say on one hand that you still own two-thirds of Telstra and you are still entitled to two-thirds of the dividends from Telstra, I accept that. But I will put another point to you. Telstra at the present time is in a very competitive position. It is out there competing with Optus and with Vodafone and with probably some others who will come into this field. It is a very expensive and competitive area. Some of the technology that is available at the present time is very expensive and could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. So, while we might sit back and say, `Look, why do we need to sell Telstra because we are going to enjoy two-thirds of the benefits that will come from the dividends from Telstra?' I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, if they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars or, in fact, a billion dollars, then we are up for two-thirds of that as well.That is something that I think the taxpayers of Australia should start to think very carefully about. Unless we do, unless the shareholders of Telstra—of which the Australian taxpayers at this particular time comprise two-thirds—spend that sort of money, then Telstra will not survive; it will go under. That is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party: they sit there and talk about this and they do not take into consideration the realities of business which are really going to drive this particular agenda. It was an agenda started by the Labor Party and, quite frankly, the agenda is now being driven by business. That is something that we must take into very clear consideration.The Labor Party sits there and says to people like me who come from the country, `But rural Australia is going to be disadvantaged by this.' I put to you that rural Australia is going to be advantaged by technology. At the present time we have a great debate about whether analog telephones or digital telephones are the best forms of communication in the country. I say to you that neither of them are. We do not get good service from either. It may be a little bit better from analog, but we certainly do not get good service from either form of telecommunications in the country. But satellite telephones will certainly give us that advantage. Because the system is digital it will give us more than just a telephone. We will be able to access all sorts of technology through that digital system.That is the type of system that the rural areas of Australia need. They do not want to be bogged down in the past that the Labor Party wants to set them in by saying, `You must remain with Telstra.' They want to get into the future. They want to get into the future where there is some communication. We have no communication at the present time—absolutely none. That is where the Labor Party want to leave us—in that time warp. We want to go further than that; we want to get into communications, we want to get into technology, we want to go with this because that is where we are going to get some benefits as far as the rural areas are concerned.I think this budget has addressed many areas. One of the areas that I believe is very important is the seniors card for superannuants in Australia. I have a great regard for those people because these are the people who have tried all throughout their lives to set aside something for the future, set aside something for their retirement. They have gone without. I have many people in my electorate who come to me and say, `Look, we have done without all this because we wanted to set ourselves up for our retirement.' But of course with the benefits of the low interest rates and the low inflation that we all think are great at the present time there is a double-edged sword. Those people who have set aside their income for investment are getting a very low return. Therefore, they need some benefit. The real disadvantaged people in this society at the present time are those who have tried to help themselves, who have saved and scrimped through their lives, who have set up some sort of asset and are now trying to live off that asset. I think this government has recognised that not only in this budget but in the previous budget. They have recognised that these people need to be supported because they are the real disadvantaged people in society at the present time.I also want to mention the gold card for the returned servicemen from the Second World War. I think that there is no doubt that this government has done quite a number of things. I will say that the previous government did quite a few things for returned servicemen as well. These people have now been recognised; under this gold card they can get some benefits. It is for those who have returned—and I know there is great debate about whether you should receive it whether you were in Australia or outside of Australia; that has always been a criterion that has been debated within the Returned Services League. But this is certainly a benefit for those who have returned. It is a great step to help those people who have made a great sacrifice for this country. I am old enough to remember the Second World War. I remember the great threat that was occasioned to this country. Those people went out of their way: many of them were not asked whether they would serve; they were told that they would serve to support this country. This is the least that we can do to help them and to give them some support in their retiring years.21:46:004379Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Tonight I want to talk about the need for change in the Australian political landscape. I want to start by reflecting on a judgment by the late Mr Justice Murphy in a decision called the Queen v Percy Neal. Percy Neal was an Aboriginal agitator described by the magistrate in Cairns. Percy Neal spat at a white overseer. The case ended in the High Court of Australia. Mr Justice Murphy dissented, in one of his many dissents as a High Court judge. I met Mr Justice Murphy in 1982 when I was a judge's associate. He was a very nice bloke; I found him an absolute gentleman privately. Politically, it is fair to say that I and Mr Justice Murphy would have very little in common except that I had enormous respect for the fact that he, too, was one of the agitators, one of the dissenters, one of the people we need in society to challenge the system.It is absolutely essential for a healthy and vibrant society to have people like Mr Justice Murphy. Equally, it is healthy and essential to have people challenging the system from the other side of politics. To have those sorts of challenges is not a threat to the system; it is part of the healthiness of that system. To not have those sorts of people makes the system unhealthy.We live in an age, unfortunately, in 1998—particularly the 1990s—where to challenge the system in any way, shape or form is to be branded something: an agitator, a racist, a bigot, a redneck. There is something wrong with you if you challenge the system. You are a little bit odd. Accordingly, those who do challenge the system, unfortunately, frequently get isolated by the system. It is absolutely essential, in my view, in the Australian political landscape, that we have people who are prepared to resist the merciless attack that is made upon them by the media and the major political parties if they stand up to the system; if they say, `This system is wrong.'Now I want to say something: this place here is wrong. When the House is sitting, this place should not be sitting. That is wrong, in my view. I would like to be down there listening to the debate about a fundamental problem going on at the moment in the world, which is the nuclear testing on the Indian subcontinent. There is a debate going on at this time that all members of the House should be addressing because it could fundamentally affect our way of life. Yet we have this little chamber here.What is also wrong is that on this side of the building here we have only ministers instead of every one of us being in every part of the whole building. We have ministers here and members there. It is wrong, because ministers are no more important than members. Yet they are isolated from the system. The executive is somehow different from the great majority of the people who are representing the great majority of Australians. That is wrong.Likewise we are constantly faced, as members, with the plethora of statistics that are thrown at us. The budget papers alone are a plethora of statistics. Every day we are told that statistics say this and statistics say that. There is no possible way for an ordinary member of parliament to challenge that. Yet government policy is being formulated by some of these things. Let me give you an example. Naomi Wolf wrote a bestseller called the Beauty Myth in which she said that in a particular year 150,000 American women would die of anorexia nervosa. The actual figure from American research was 54. That is a simple example in American statistics of how pathetic statistics are thrown at people and people basically accept them.Here is one closer to home. Three or four years ago, Carmen Lawrence put out a statistic in a press release that said that 70 per cent of all police call-outs in New South Wales were to domestic violence incidents. The actual figure was 0.7 per cent. That gives you some idea. I will give a more recent example. The Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan) put out a statistic—she gave a speech to the WestNET conference a few months ago. She said that men have to stop bashing women and children. In fact, the figures, by gender, of women and men abusing children are that more women than men—it is very hard to get those statistics—are abusing children. I say at the outset that we need a major attack in this country on the accuracy of statistics so that proper policies can be formulated. That means attacking the precepts, the political correctness, the social engineering that so underlies what we say and do.Last week we had what was, in my view, the sorry spectacle of the so-called Sorry Day. Let me say at the outset that the forcible removal of innocent children from caring parents by government or church officials is indefensible in a liberal democratic society. But it is absolutely essential that any inquiry into that matter do everything in its power to ensure that the accounts of past practices and its conclusion are beyond any reasonable question.What does Dr Ron Brunton say about this in a very lengthy paper, an IPA backgrounder on the stolen generations report? And may I say that, without having even read his paper— before I read it—having considered the stolen generation report I found it to be a very poorly written document that does not merit academic credence, that is rhetorical, that ought not to form the basis of government action. But I did not have the time to study it: that was my first impression of it. As a lawyer, you are looking for facts and something solid. Ron Brunton did have time to examine it. He was one of those who exposed the Hindmarsh Island fraud. He said this of the report:Unfortunately, anyone who expects to find a rigorous, sober and factual assessment of the past in Bringing them home will be sorely disappointed. The report is a most unworthy and tendentious document.He considers the report to be poorly argued and demonstrating `considerable intellectual and moral confusion' leading to a `damned if you do/damned if you don't situation'. He says that `the report misrepresents a number of its sources and ignores crucial information, and readily makes assertions which are either factually wrong or unsupported by appropriate evidence.' He adds the most damning indictment of all:It is one of the most intellectually and morally irresponsible reports to be presented to the Australian government in recent years.Can we ignore that? Can we say, `We cannot talk about that issue'? The issue that we have to solve is why those things were done in the cases where they were done. We have to ensure that it does not happen again. But do we push aside this damning critique? Apparently we do not. We say, `We cannot talk about that. It is a bit sensitive. What we will do as a government is throw some money at it to try to get the people who are most raising the issue to be quiet; we'll assuage the consciences of the others and we'll try to buy a few votes elsewhere in the equation.' At the same time, as Dr Brunton concludes, we lose any authority that we have to occupy any sort of moral ground. As he says, `Too many members of the Howard government seem to have lost confidence in the moral authority of their supposed philosophical principles of liberalism, and seem to accept that they have no right to occupy the high moral ground. They need to remember that Martin Luther King's stirring wish that his children would see a time when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character is a classic expression of the liberal ideal.'How much more are we seeing this? We are seeing it in the absurd Office of the Status of Women. Why do we have the Office of the Status of Women in 1998? Why do we not have the office of the status of the family? Why are we trying to divide men and women? Why do women need protection in 1998? Women have come a long way, but why are we continuing to divide the sexes when we should be, as representatives of the people, be uniting people?Why do we say that we are going to ensure that legislation is introduced to make superannuation fifty-fifty? Does that mean that a man can come home drunk from the pub every night, bash his wife, never do a tap of work, she works the whole time and he can claim 50 per cent of her super? Conversely, does it mean that a woman who does not provide for the home, who does not support her husband who is working, who has a multitude and string of affairs and relationships can get half of his super? What sort of a society is it when we are legislating from the state to tell people, `Notwithstanding your behaviour, you are going to part with 50 per cent of your superannuation because that is the law'? It is not good enough. This encroachment of the state into every facet of our lives effectively makes us little different to what Soviet Russia was or communist China was. The only difference is that we get a chance to vote every three years, but to hell with you after that. Many people are dragged kicking and screaming to the polling booths to vote for a very limited choice.What are we going to do about these things? We heard the honourable member for Page (Mr Causley) talking about Telstra. I had grave reservations personally about the sale of Telstra. Unfortunately, when I had a look at the figures of the debt that had gone up sixfold between 1990 and 1996—that is our public debt—I concluded, `What can we do about that other than sell Telstra to pay it back? We cannot have $95 billion worth of public debt.' Reluctantly I concluded, as I would if it were my own situation and I had to decide whether I could keep my house going with the debt levels it had or sell part of my land to get rid of some of that debt, that I would have to make a decision to do that. Likewise, the government had to do it. I do not think it is a good thing that it has happened. But I believe that the government had to do it.When we are talking about the debt levels, we have to ask ourselves why there are these debt levels. Why is it that we have such great levels of debt? What is happening at the other end? In relation to the tax debate, that is what we have to consider first. Surely we have to ask why it is that we need to raise so much tax to cover so much expenditure. Why is it, then, when we are spending more than $20 billion on the health system, that Kerry Packer and I can go to the doctor tomorrow for nothing? That is not right. We should have to pay to go to the doctor. I can afford to pay to go to the doctor. Kerry Packer can afford it a damned sight more. A lot of other people can afford to go to the doctor but they do not pay under this system. Why do they not pay? Because this system says that we make it fair for everybody. But it is not fair for everybody. With this system, we create a massive amount of debt and expenditure within the state that has to be paid back, or we increase our taxes to ensure that these debt levels are met. Do we want that to continue? Can we possibly have a tax reform structure without addressing the level of expenditure? It seems that we can; the government says that we can have tax reform without addressing expenditure levels. Yes, we have an expenditure level that has been reined in—and I give credit where credit is due. But I say this: we have a definite and urgent need in this country for a major capital works project, or several of them, to create real jobs. What are we doing about that?What are we doing about the fact that our country is the driest country in the world? Are we looking at major capital works, something in the nature of the Snowy Mountains scheme, to do something about our dry continent? It is fundamental for the future of this country to address that need. What are we doing as urban sprawl swallows up more and more good farming land and more and more marginal land is opened up? What are we doing as our El Ninos come and go with monotonous regularity? We have not had a wet season for many years in the part of the world where my property is located. It is all changing, and we are not doing anything about it. But we have to do something about it. We have to create real jobs—not mickey mouse jobs, real jobs. We owe it to our youth to do that.We also owe members of our society, including our youth, access to justice and an end to the division within society. In talking about access to justice, about a year or so ago I put forward a proposal to help provide access to justice to people who are unable to get access to justice because of the legal aid system cutting them out. If you are a criminal, you get it. But if you are in that middle range, just having your basic house, you get nothing and you miss out on access to justice.My plan is very simple; it virtually will not cost the government anything. My plan is that every legal process to be filed in this country—and there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of legal processes which are filed—would attract a filing fee of just 50c. A fee of 50c would not hurt a soul, but all those 50c fees would amount to a great pool of money which could be replenished by people accessing that fund for damages claims and agreeing to part of any proceeds of their damages claims being taxed to the extent of a percentage going back into the fund. That is not going to hurt them. They would never have got near the court otherwise. They would have had their justice denied. But under that system which I gave to the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), they would have a chance.There are a lot of people out there in that situation. Medical negligence is a classic case, with people not being able to get to court when serious consequences have arisen from an operation. In some cases people have died—and I have seen cases like that. There was one case in particular where a widow came to see me about her husband, and I have no doubt that there was medical negligence. But I had to tell that widow, `I am sorry, this will be a very hard case.' I gave the advice to legal aid for nothing; legal aid would not pay me for it, and it took me a week and a half to complete it. At the end of the day I had to say, `I am sorry, but this is a difficult case; sorry, no legal aid.' That woman went without access to justice.There is a way through that, and yet we are cutting legal aid. Fine, I understand that we need to cut legal aid. But why aren't we looking at these other areas, taking the opportunity to use those sorts of things? Why aren't we opening up our minds to the fact that we need changes to the child support system, that we need to do something urgently—not just a little scraping around here and there at the edges? We need to address these situations urgently.One chap rang me just tonight and said, `Two months ago I was up to date; today I have an $11,000 debt. Because of the way the system is calculated, I now owe $11,000. There was an error in some calculation and now I owe $11,000.' He said, `The children are well, they are healthy, they have their clothes, but I now owe a debt of $11,000. How can I possibly pay it? I'll never be able to pay it,' he said to me.So we have all these situations that need addressing, yet we are not addressing them. We are trying to paper the edges. I get back to the fundamental issue: when I joined the Liberal Party, I believed that it addressed the rights of the individual. Now, unfortunately, I believe the Liberal Party stands for nothing.22:05:004383Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—It is a pleasure to speak on the appropriation bills, particularly with the national economy in such excellent shape with low interest rates, the lowest inflation rate for 35 years and unemployment below eight per cent for the first time in eight years. That puts the Australian community in a very strong position for the future, following the release of the 1998-99 budget.The budget saw the elimination of the $10.5 billion deficit left to us by Labor mismanagement; the budget is now showing a $2.7 billion surplus, without the need by the government to impose any new taxes. This is a great result to be achieved after a little over two years of coalition government.Australia under Labor governments, under both Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating, suffered the worst recession in 60 years. Interest rates went up nearly three per cent between August and December 1994, taking mortgage interest rates up to 17 per cent and in some instances more. More than one million Australians lost their jobs during this period, with national unemployment peaking at 11.2 per cent in late 1992.The Keating Labor government was always a high taxing government and either increased or imposed wholesale sales tax, petrol excise, tobacco excise, fringe benefits tax, the Medicare levy, motor vehicle and company taxes. During that period it drove many small businesses to the wall because of its high interest rate policy.I have a few matters to report to the House about the state of the Bendigo electorate. The Bendigo electorate has seen many improvements over the past few years. Substantial progress has been made on our transport links, with the Calder Highway being declared a road of national importance by the federal government and the injection and commitment of funds in excess of $100 million to bring this highway up to four-lane freeway status. Telecommunications throughout the electorate has seen a vast improvement, with major upgrades of exchanges, mobile services and call centres, and the expansion of the work force in both the public and private sector.Unemployment still remains a problem. However, there has been a vast improvement since the bad days of the ALP governments, when national unemployment did reach that 11.2 per cent figure in late 1992. The national unemployment figure at 7.9 per cent is still too high. The coalition has addressed this and introduced a number of employment programs throughout the Bendigo electorate that will have a lasting impact on our environment programs, particularly through the Natural Heritage Trust, the Green Corps, the work for the dole scheme and the black spot road safety program. They have all added to employment in our region as well as providing employment and training for the participants.During my period as chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I had the pleasure to be the overseer and an initiator of a lot of major improvements in the small business sector. The report that the committee made to the government on finding a balance in fair trading in Australia has brought about changes to the retail tenancy laws Australia-wide. Further progress is being made in that area. It is introducing a franchise code of conduct. It will ultimately strengthen the oil code for the petroleum industry and will provide equal protection for small to medium sized businesses in equal status with consumers and larger corporations under the Trade Practices Act for unfair or unconscionable conduct, a landmark decision after 20 years of ongoing debate and 17 early reports by governments.Industry in the Bendigo region now has a clear path ahead, with the government's decisions on the automobile industry and the textile, clothing and footwear industry. The government's decision on the cessation of the book bounty attracted some criticism. Honourable members will recall it. However, the recent success of the book printer at Maryborough in central Victoria in winning a multi-million dollar contract to print Mills and Boon books indicates that Australia is able to compete against the rest of the world in book printing. Australian Defence Industries Ltd is now in a strong position as it moves towards privatisation with a new increased range of defence product, including the bushmaster vehicle and the high-speed engineered vehicle, which are both attracting attention overseas. There has been much interest in Australian Defence Industries from Australian organisations, major Australian manufacturing firms and some of the biggest defence firms in the world. I look forward now to the next stage in the privatisation process of ADI.The Australian topographical survey establishment at Fortuna is in a very strong position for the future with the recent announcement of a $1.5 million allocation for the development of the Pararay system, which is the state-of-the-art in topographical and map making technology. Further defence expenditure during the 1997-98 budget included $8.9 million on upgrading all of the electrical equipment and mechanical services to enable this facility and project to proceed. Also in the budget there was a $35 million defence multi-user depot allocation, which will be used and built in Bendigo for the use of defence department of Australia.One thing I would like to indicate to the House is that there has been a marked increase in the population in Bendigo. I want to go back to 1997, because it is a fairly clear indication of the growth. When you look at the population of Bendigo at that time it was around 50,000. There has been a 20 per cent increase—one of the highest growth rates in Victoria—since 1976 to just under 60,000. I am talking only of the city area. The city of greater Bendigo, which extends further, is well over the 80,000 population mark. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the population of the city of greater Bendigo between 1991 and 1996 increased by 3,786 persons. That figure beat the combined increase of Geelong and Ballarat of 3,473.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—A very active member.VT4Reid, Bruce, MPMr REID—I thank the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The Bendigo electorate has shifted its emphasis somewhat away from the public sector employment into private sector employment. I am pleased to say that, as a result of this, the population is still increasing at a fairly substantial rate.Another initiative that I was involved in was relocating the historic post office in Bendigo. That can always be a very traumatic experience. People become very attached to post offices. We relocated it with the assistance of the honourable Rob Maclellan, the state minister for planning. We moved it from Pall Mall to the corner of Hargraves Street and Williamson Street in the heart of the CBD. We converted the former post office—the old historic building is very beautiful—into a tourist information centre. I am pleased to say that it is one of the best tourist information centres in Australia.Bendigo, Castlemaine, Heathcote and Elmore have all been recipients of substantial federal government tourism funding to develop tourism information centres and for Castlemaine and Mount Alexander there has been the opportunity to develop a major tourist attraction, a Mount Alexander diggings project. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.16 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4386The following answers to questions were circulated:4386(Question No. 2151)21514386Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 August 1997:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the submission to him from the Primary Industry Financial Co-operative Limited (PIFCOL) outlining an alternative form of farm finance to that offered by traditional lenders.(2) If so, will he (a) discuss the PIFCOL proposal with Cabinet and Treasury and (b) make an announcement regarding the "Letter of Comfort" being sought by PIFCOL.(3) Is the scheme outlined by PIFCOL capable of providing a viable and attractive alternative form of finance for primary producers; if not, will the Government introduce alternative measures to reduce the interest burdens faced by Australian primary producers.4386Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) (a) The matter of commercial finance is outside my portfolio responsibilities.Matters for discussion in Cabinet are confidential.(b) The Government has advised PIFCOL that it is unable to assist it in their request for a "Letter of Comfort".(3) Legal advice obtained by my Department indicates that a "Letter of Comfort" which would enable PIFCOL to obtain a AAA rating could place the Government under a legal obligation to cover losses, should the organisation fail.The Treasurer has also advised me that provision of a "Letter of Comfort" as requested by PIFCOL would result in shifting PIFCOL's financial risk and potential liabilities onto the Commonwealth.The Government's approach to improving the cost of finance for all businesses is through further reform of the finance sector by implementing the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry.The Government's commitment to responsible macroeconomic policy, through reducing the Budget deficit and committing to an inflation target, has ensured the maintenance of low inflation and continuing low interest rates. This has allowed real progress to be made in reducing business input costs and has provided a boost to Australia's international competitiveness.The Government has also convened the Consultative Rural Finance Forum, chaired by my Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Judith Troeth. The Forum which was announced as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia initiative, is examining a number of issues impacting on the level of financial sector competition in rural areas. The Forum has been established to promote regular consultation between the rural sector, financial institutions and Government following a recommendation of the National Rural Finance Summit Activating Committee.4386(Question No. 2435)24354386Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 23 October 1997:(1) Is he able to say whether Mr G. Clark, Mr M. Mansell and Mr G. Shaw are undertaking an overseas visit; if so, is he also able to say (a) what authority the visit has, (b) who do the persons purport to represent, (c) by whom were they elected or appointed and (d) is taxpayers' money financing the visit; if not, how are expenses being met.4386Wooldridge, 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) I am advised by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) that Mr G Clark, Mr M Mansell and Mr G Shaw undertook an overseas visit in October 1997. The overseas trip includes attendance at the Commission on Human Rights Working Group No.3 (CHRWG 3) meeting in Geneva and visits to South Africa en route.(a) Commissioner Clark travelled with the endorsement of the ATSIC Board of Commissioners as is required by the Commissioners' Travel Guidelines for any international travel undertaken by Commissioners. Mr Mansell had authority from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre to attend the CHRWG 3 in Geneva. Mr G Shaw is an employee of the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, travelled with the authority of that organisation.(b) Commissioner Clark represented the Commission. Mr Mansell represented the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre in Geneva. ATSIC understands that Mr Shaw represented the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, and the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title, of which the ALSWA is a member.(c) Commissioner Clark replaced Commissioner O'Shane as the ATSIC representative at the CHRWG 3 meeting in Geneva and the ATSIC Board of Commissioners agreed that he could travel in his official capacity as a Commissioner for the entire trip, after he had advised that he would be undertaking the travel as an individual to South Africa(d) Commissioner Clark travelled to South Africa by private funding but is entitled to seek reimbursement from ATSIC for the costs associated with that travel. Otherwise, his costs were met by ATSIC. An ATSIC grant was made to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre to send a representative to the CHRWG 3 meeting in Geneva. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, taxpayers funds were not used to finance Mr Shaw's visit and the Legal Service has advised that Mr Shaw was required to take leave for the period.4387(Question No. 2659)26594387Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Did the outgoing Chief Executive Officer in the Employment Services Regulatory Authority's annual report for 1996-97 warn (a) of the dangers in the new employment services market arising from widespread ignorance of the principles and application of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in the employment services industry, especially with regard to collusive pricing and market sharing and (b) that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had limited infrastructure and resources for continuous monitoring of competition in employment services at a national level and for local level intervention to avoid or minimise competitive concerns; if so, what steps is he taking to deal with the problems.4387Kemp, 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:(a) When the comments made by the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Employment Services Regulatory Authority (ESRA) in its annual report for 1996-97 are read in context it is clear that he did not foresee any danger in the employment services. I believe that in his role as outgoing CEO, he was simply and quite rightly drawing attention to the key role my Department will take in developing the employment services market.In my view, it is clear the outgoing CEO's comments related to the immaturity of the employment services market and the need to ensure competitive neutrality as it develops—a role my Department takes very seriously.(b) When read in full in ESRA's annual report, in my view it is clear that the outgoing CEO's comments about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) were intended to reinforce and support the role my Department will assume in supporting market development. The recently announced Job Network Members' Club is an example of how my Department will develop mechanisms for ensuring information exchange between the parties and for the dissemination of service quality improvement and market development initiatives.The ACCC has produced a guide to the Trade Practices Act 1974 for Job Network members and will respond to breaches of trade practices law. I believe that the outgoing CEO's comments were simply intended to reinforce that the full burden of educating the market in relation to trade practices law cannot rest with the ACCC. My Department will take an active role both in educating Job Network members about their responsibilities in these matters and in ensuring competitive neutrality through its purchasing and contract management role.4387(Question No. 2773)27734387Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:How many voluntary participants in the work for the dole scheme reside in postcode areas (a) 3130, (b) 3131, (c) 3132, (d) 3128, (e) 3133, (f) 3149, (g) 3166, (h) 3167, (i) 3147, (j) 3148, (k) 3150, (l) 3039, (m) 3041, (n) 3055, (o) 3056, (p) 3057, (q) 3058, (r) 3059, (s) 3040, (t) 3044, (u) 3046 and (v) 3074.4387Kemp, 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:As at 12 May 1998, Departmental records show that four of the postcodes provided had voluntary participants in Work for the Dole. They were:(c) 3132 1 participant.(e) 3133 1 participant.(f) 3149 1 participant.(q) 3058 1 participant. [An error occured in the publication of Question 2821 (Hansard, 27 May 1998, page 3898). The correct answer is as follows]4388(Question No. 2821)28214388Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:Will he provide a list of Defence properties (a) sold or disposed of since 1996, (b) in the process of being sold or disposed of and (c) scheduled to be sold or disposed of, indicating, in each case, (i) the new owner of the property and (ii) its former use, including the (A) identification of ADF units occupying the property and (B) site of their relocation.4388McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As a result of a number of major reviews including the 1991 Force Structure Review and the 1997 Defence Reform Program, a large number of Defence properties have been disposed of or identified for disposal. The reviews examined all aspects of Defence activities with increasing emphasis on rationalisation and consolidation.Where activities or units have been relocated to a variety of bases or establishments, the principal site is identified. For example, the rationalisation of Defence storage facilities led to the establishment of the Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre (DNSDC) at Moorebank where the majority of storage activities were transferred, whereas some higher priority stores were relocated to operational bases.There are no site relocation details provided for disestablished units or for redundant properties such as rifle ranges.(a) Properties sold since 1995/96 financial year.PropertyNew OwnerFormer Use/UnitSite of Relocation1995/96NSWMerrylands (part)McDonalds P/LARes Training Depot (4/3 RNSWR)IngleburnMillers PointLewis Davoren Urban Projects P/LARes Training Depot (Psych Unit)Victoria Barracks,SydneyNewcastle, BlacksmithsLandcomTraining DepotAdamstownKing St, NewcastleRhaeto P/LTraining DepotAdamstownNorth Sydney, Walker StDelodo P/LHydrographic OfficeWollongongQuakers Hill (HMAS Nirimba)NSW Dept. of EducationNavy Technical Training FacilityHMAS CerberusWattle Grove (part)DHATraining AreaQLDHorn Island (part)Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)Training AreaMoorookaBlueshop P/L & Clemwell P/LTraining DepotArcherfieldSarinaSarina Shire CouncilTraining DepotTASDeloraineMeander Valley CouncilTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)YoungtownVICAraratRural City of AraratRifle Range Broadmeadows (part)Broadfield Estates P/LBarracks (Tpt Coy 4 BASB, Fd Wksp Coy)Site rationalisationBendigoCity of Greater BendigoRifle RangeBroadmeadowsCommonwealth Serum LaboratoriesVacant LandCaulfieldCity of Glen EiraTraining DepotOakleighColacDr MaddenRifle RangeLonsdale (North)Maizcay P/LBarracks/AdminPort MelbourneVictorian GovernmentDrill HallTottenhamACN 007 152 598 P/LStorage DepotMoorebankWAPerth (Swan Barracks)Swan Barracks Holdings P/LFormer Army HQLeeuwin Barracks1996/97NSWChester HillThe Assemblies of GodDomestic AccommodationConcordRegla P/LOffice AccommodationDefence Plaza, SydneyThorby Ave, DubboCalveda P/LAdministration FacilityHurstvilleBaseview P/LTraining DepotRandwick BarracksKelsoBathurst City CouncilStorage DepotMoorebankLeichhardtNSW RTATraining DepotBanksmeadowMuswellbrook (part)Smoothpost P/LSurplus LandNewington NSW State GovtStorage DepotRAN Kingswood, HMAS Stirling, SomertonCarrington Rd, RandwickIsparta P/LARes Training DepotRandwick BarracksTomagoBizitay P/LShipyardVillawoodSaranbay P/LStorage Depot MoorebankHolsworthy (part)Liverpool CouncilVacant LandZetlandLandcom (NSW Govt)Navy Storage DepotMoorebankQLDMoretonBareena P/L Landpac Corp Manz Enterprises P/LNaval EstablishmentBulimbaYerongaHalken P/LMilitary HospitalEnoggera Barracks SABeulah ParkStephan EvansTraining Depot (144 Sig Sqn)Keswick BarracksNTAlice SpringsVarious on local marketUS housesUS Govt HousingTASHobart (HMAS Huon)Hobart Marine BoardNaval EstablishmentHuonvilleMr RE KruseGRes Training DepotDowsings PointLongfordNorthern Midlands CouncilTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)YoungtownScottsdale DSTODorset CouncilSurplus LandGlenorchyElphinstone Nominees P/LTraining DepotDowsings PointUlverstoneFH & RE Jones and GJ & JM Van EkTraining Depot (12/40 RTR)LauncestonVICNetherby—8 Queens Rd, South MelbourneKah Australia P/LAdministration Facility WatsoniaBandiana (part)Murray Valley CentreSurplus LandBeaufortZignet P/LRifle RangeAllingham St, BendigoCity of Greater BendigoStorage DepotCarpenter St, BendigoJ Lawson & A Karam Administration FacilityDysart SidingFR & MJ U'RenRailway SidingFitzroy NorthMillenium Properties P/LTraining Depot (Army Financial Services Unit)WatsoniaIvanhoeAng Shun Group Developments P/LTraining DepotNorth CarltonCassar Constructions P/LTraining Depot (4/19 PWLH)WatsoniaGipps St, RichmondA.Lawson; L. Lawson; J. Armytage,G.; Brodbeck, and A. FisherTraining Depot (3 Trg Gp)WatsoniaSturt StMelbourne City Link AuthorityTraining Depot (3 Movement Unit)WatsoniaLaverton (part)Hiddins Trading P/LLogistic Facility1997/98NSWTrescoPaliflex P/LRepresentational HomeWilloughbyRobert Dunnett P/LTraining DepotPymble VICSouth KensingtonUrban Land AuthorityUnit (104 Sig Sqn)WatsoniaLavertonCedarwoods P/LAirfieldDeer ParkUrban Land AuthorityExplosives Factory and buffer landMulwalaMiles St, South MelbourneVictorian GovernmentWorkshopMaribyrnongWarrnamboolSouth West Water AuthorityRifle RangeGrosvenor—55 Queens Rd, Sth MelbourneLandmark Queens Road P/LAdministration FacilityWatsoniaFitzroyGeorge St Developments P/LDrill HallWatsoniaSeymourW. Rhode andR. PattersonRail sidingCobramMonsfar P/LTraining Depot (8/7 RVR)SheppartonFishermens BendDPA Investments P/LTest CellsTASScottsdaleMr. J. McDougallTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)YoungtownWABroomeEric McCormickNORFORCE DepotBroomeKununurraCheryl and Anton CavlovicNORFORCE DepotKununurraSAAlbertonAdelin P/LTraining Depot (10/27 RSAR)Keswick BarracksQLDFrenchville (Rockhampton)Ariah P/LRifle RangeAcacia RidgeMr and Mrs MussigCommunications Station (136 Sig Sqn)ACTFairbairnCapital Airport Group P/LRAAF BaseTo be determined VIP Fleet to remain(b) The following Defence properties are in the process of disposal:Property UseSite of RelocationNSWRandwick (Frenchmans Road)Training Depot (1 LSG)Randwick Barracks Randwick (Bundock St)Stores Depot (General Logistics Navy)MoorebankDubboRAAF Storage Depot MoorebankStocktonRifle RangeAdamstown (part)Vacant LandOrange (part)Surplus LandParkes (part)Surplus landJaspers BrushParachute Drop ZoneHMAS AlbatrossMt St ThomasTraining Depot (14 Flt NSWAIRTC)WarrawongLithgowTraining Depot(1/19 RNSWR)MarrangarooCoomaTraining Depot CanberraCootamundraTraining Depot (256 RCU)WaggaAlburyTraining Depot (4/19 PWLH)BandianaCrow's NestARes Training Depot (5 Fd Amb)BanksmeadowForest LodgeTraining Depot (8 BASB)DundasGladesvilleStorage DepotDundasRegents ParkStorage DepotMoorebankRydalmereStorage DepotMoorebankHomebushStorage DepotDundasKingswoodStorage DepotMoorebankPenrithStorage DepotMoorebankPadstowTraining DepotBanksmeadowPaddingtonTraining DepotHMAS PlatypusNaval EstablishmentGarden Island WABelmoreTraining Depot (23 Fd Regt)SutherlandHaberfieldTraining Depot (21 Const Regt)HolsworthySchofieldsAerodromeIngleburnArmy Establishment (2 Trg Gp)HolsworthyArncliffeTraining Depot (2/17 RNSWR)RockdaleNorth HeadSchool of Artillery PuckapunyalAlexandriaMaterials Testing LabMosman8 BdeDundasGeorges HeightsTraining Command 1 Commando RegtTo be determinedWoolwichArmy Transport FacilityTownsville VICLot 1 Fishermens BendStorage FacilityBandiana (part)Storage DepotMoorebankPowlett St, East MelbourneTraining Depot (MUR)CarltonPortseaTraining Establishment BonegillaBallaratRifle RangeIndigo ValleyRifle Range SiteLonglea, BendigoExplosives StoragePunt Lane, SaleSurplus LandVictoria St, MelbourneAdministrative FacilityMentoneSurplus LandLandene, Sth MelbourneAccommodationCharsfield, Sth MelbourneAccommodationRockbankCommunications StationDiggers RestCommunications StationMaribyrnong (Afton St)Surplus LandSpencer StStorage DepotStawell Rifle RangeQueenscliffCarparkMaribyrnongExplosives FactoryMulwalaMaribyrnongStorage DepotSomertonMollison St, BendigoTraining Depot (15 Tpt Sqn)BendigoWangarattaTraining Depot(4/19 PWLH)WangarattaKorumburraTraining Depot (3 Rec Coy)OakleighMangaloreAmmunition Depot (SVLG)PuckapunyalSaleTraining Depot (A Sqn 4/19 PWLH, 308 RCU)RAAF Base SaleSurrey HillsTraining Depot (B Coy 5/6 RVR)Proposed MUD, Waverley TraralgonTraining Depot (Tp A Sqn, 4/19 PWLH)To be determinedBairnsdaleTraining Depot (Tp A Sqn, 4/19 PWLH)To be determinedDandenongTraining Depot (22 Fd Bty 2/10 Mdm Regt 34 RCU)Proposed MUD, Geelong MaryboroughTraining Depot (Sig P1, Spt Coy 8/7 RVR)Bendigo QLDTighnabruaichRepresentational HomeMulgrave Rd, CairnsSurplus LandZillmereSurplus LandKelvin GroveTraining Depot (9 RQR, 4 Pvnt Med Coy, 11 Psych Unit, 21 Psych Unit)Enoggera BarracksSandgateTraining Depot (Spt Coy 9 RQR)Proposed MUD, Pine Rivers WacolBarracks and Training AreaAnnerleyTraining Depot (1 Fd Regt)Gallipoli BarracksGoondiwindiTraining Depot (25/49 RQR)ToowoombaArcher St, RockhamptonTraining Depot (42 RQR)Weston St, RockhamptonIndooroopillyBarracks (QLD University Regt)To be determinedDysartTraining Depot (Pl B Coy 42 RQR)To be determinedAyrTraining Depot (B Coy 31 RQR)To be determinedAmberleyVacant landSABirkenhead (HMAS Encounter)Naval EstablishmentUnit closedGawlerTraining Depot (3/9 LH (SAMR))Elizabeth NorthSmithfieldStorage DepotSomertonTraining Depot (9 MP P1)Keswick/WarradaleElizabeth NorthTraining Depot (A Sqn 3/9 LH (SAMR), 49 RCU)RAAF EdinburghSalisbury (part)DSTO Establishment (part)Site RationalisationWABushmeadRifle Range (Tpt Coy 13 BASB)Dilhorn, East PerthArmy MuseumArtillery Barracks, FremantleFremantleFuel InstallationCollieTraining Depot (11/28 RWAR)BunburyBullsbrookSurplus LandCavershamTransmitter Site NT11 Mile (Berrimah)Transmitter Site Proposed Robertson BarracksLee PointTransmitter SiteTo be determinedWinnellieTransmitter SiteProposed Roberston BarracksAlice SpringsFuel DepotACTGungahlinCommunications StationBelconnenTransmitter SiteRiverinaTASBeaumaris HouseTraining Depot (12/40 RTR)Dowsings PointBrightonArmy Establishment (6 Trg Gp)Proposed Anglesea Barracks(c) (i)(ii) (A) and (B) The following properties were identified for possible disposal under the Defence Reform Program. In some instances, a decision to proceed with the disposal of the individual properties is subject to studies on the feasibility, cost and benefit of the rationalisation and consolidation of functions and activities. These properties are still owned by the Government.PropertyUseSite of relocationSHORT TERM (Within five years) years)NSWBathurstStorage DepotMoorebankJenner/Bomera/TaranaOffice AccommodationTo be determinedBringellyTransmitter StationTo be determinedGan GanTraining FacilityJenningsStorage DepotTo be determinedLondonderryTransmitter StationTo be determinedQLDCowley BeachTraining AreaTo be determinedInnisfailDSTO FacilityTownsvilleJezzine BarracksLavarack BarracksSATorrensTraining Depot (10/27 RSAR, AUR)To be determinedTASAlbeura St, Hobart (part)Office AccommodationAnglesea BarracksVICBendigoMap Production FacilityTo be determinedBroadmeadowsLog FacilityTo be determinedRAN SomertonStorage DepotTo be determinedWANorthamTraining FacilityTo be determined MEDIUM TERM (2001-2006)ACTHMAS HarmanNaval EstablishmentTo be determinedNSWRAAF GlenbrookAir HeadquartersTo be determinedRAAF RichmondRAAF baseTo be determinedRAAF WaggaRAAF baseTo be determinedRAN Kingswood and1 Central Ammunition Depot (RAAF)Explosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedWirlingaExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedQLDWacolBarrack FacilitiesTo be determinedWallangarraStorage DepotTo be determinedTASFort DirectionExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedVICMaribyrnongDSTO/ATEATo be determinedMangaloreExplosives Ordnance StoragePuckapunyalRAAF Point CookRAAF baseTo be determinedFort QueenscliffTraining EstablishmentCollocated Staff CollegeLONG TERM (beyond 2006)NSWBogan GateExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedGlossary of AbbreviatonsAMSAAustralian Maritime Safety AuthorityAResArmy ReserveATEAArmy Technology and Engineering AgencyAURAdelaide University RegimentBASBBase Administrative Support BattalionBdeBrigadeConst RegtConstruction RegimentCoyCompanyDHADefence Housing AuthorityDSTODefence Science Technology OrganisationFd AmbField AmbulanceFd BtyField BatteryFd WkspField WorkshopFltFlightInf BnInfantry BattalionLH (SAMR)Light Horse (South Australian Mounted Rifles) LSGLogistic Support GroupMdm RegtMedium RegimentMP P1Military Policy PlatoonMURMelbourne University RegimentMUDMulti-User DepotNORFORCENorth West Mobile ForceNSWAIRTCNew South Wales Air Training CorpPlPlatoonPsychPsychiatricPvnt Med CoyPreventative Medicine CompanyPWLHPrince of Wales Light HorseQM Det AFSUQuarter Master Detachment Australian Financial Services UnitRCURegional Cadet UnitRec CoyRecovery CompanyRegtRegimentRNSWRRoyal New South Wales RegimentRQRRoyal Queensland RegimentRSARRoyal South Australian RegimentRTRRoyal Tasmanian RegimentRVRRoyal Victorian RegimentRWARRoyal West Australian RegimentSig PlSignal PlatoonSig SqnSignal SquadronSptSupportSVLGSouthern Victorian Logistics GroupTptTransportTrg GpTraining Group4397(Question No. 2865)28654397Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:What were or are the (a) countries involved in, (b) name of, (c) dates of (i) commencement and (ii) conclusion of, (d) Australian units involved in, (e) foreign units involved in, (f) cost to the Australian Defence Force of, and (g) nature of, each exercise which the ADF has undertaken or will undertake with forces other than US forces in (A) 1994, (B) 1995, (C) 1996, (D) 1997, (E) 1998, (F) 1999 and (G) 2000.4397McLachlan, 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.4397(Question No. 2894)28944397Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in the USA.4397Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in the USA are approximately: USA20 foot container40 foot containerWest Coast PortsA$2,995A$4,400East Coast PortsA$1,975A$2,525BostonA$2,550A$2,900The freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill. For example through rates to Boston carry an additional charge as Boston is not serviced directly by lines carrying wool to the USA.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4398(Question No. 2895)28954398Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in the People's Republic of China.4398Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in the People's Republic of China are approximately:People's Republic of China20 foot container40 foot containerServiced portsA$1,300A$2,000The freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4398(Question No. 2896)28964398Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in the People's Republic of China.4398Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in the Italy are approximately:Italy20 foot container40 foot containerDirect service from AustraliaA$1,780A$2,155Transhipment from SingaporeA$1,750The freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4399(Question No. 2897)28974399Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in the Republic of Korea.4399Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in the Republic of Korea are approximately:Republic of Korea20 foot container40 foot containerServiced portsA$1,100Rates provided on requestThe freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4399(Question No. 2898)28984399Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in India.4399Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in India are approximately:India20 foot container40 foot containerServiced portsA$1,500 to A$1,600Rates provided on requestThe freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4400(Question No. 2899)28994400Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in Germany.4400Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in Germany are approximately:Germany20 foot container40 foot containerDirect service from AustraliaA$1,970 to A$2,155Rates provided on requestTranshipment via SingaporeA$1,750 to $1,850The freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4400(Question No. 2900)29004400Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in Hong Kong.4400Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in Hong Kong are approximately:Hong Kong20 foot container40 foot containerDirect service from AustraliaA$900A$1,400The freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4400(Question No. 2901)29014400Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the sea freight charge per (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot container of wool from export ports in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Western Australia and (iii) Victoria to destination ports in France.4400Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The freight charges for wool to destination ports in France are approximately: France20 foot container40 foot containerDirect service from AustraliaA$1,970 to A$2,155A$1,750 to $1,850Transhipment via SingaporeRates provided on requestThe freight charges for wool are the same for wool exported from ports in either New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia. The rates quoted are approximate and may not be the actual rates applying in the market place as larger wool shippers can negotiate more favourable rates.Rates also differ depending upon the whether the ports are called at directly in overseas countries by the lines concerned. Additional charges will apply if the consignee wishes to have the container moved on to another port which may be closer to the mill.Forty foot boxes are available on request but are not normally used for greasy wool, particularly in Europe where weight limitations for road transport apply. Forty foot containers may be more cost effective for transporting scoured and carbonised wool or tops to some destinations.4401(Question No. 2902)29024401Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What are the stevedoring charges applicable to (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers of Australian wool at destination ports in the USA.4401Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. My Department has also made approaches to industry who are also unable to provide the information. I am therefore not in a position to provide an answer to the question.4401(Question No. 2903)29034401Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What are the stevedoring charges applicable to (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers of Australian wool at destination ports of (i) Pusan, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Calcutta and (iv) Barcelona.4401Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. My Department has also made approaches to industry who are also unable to provide the information. I am therefore not in a position to provide an answer to the question.4401(Question No. 2904)29044401Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What are the stevedoring charges applicable to (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers of wool ex-Australia at the destination ports of (i) Genoa, (ii) Spenzia, (iii) Flushing, (iv) Marseilles, (v) Bremerhaven.4401Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. My Department has also made approaches to industry who are also unable to provide the information. I am therefore not in a position to provide an answer to the question.4401(Question No. 2905)29054401Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy upon notice on 8 April 1998:(1) What is the stevedoring charge for (a) 20 foot and (b) 40 foot containers at the container terminals at the destination ports (i) of Hong Kong, (ii) in the Peoples Republic of China.(2) Is it a fact that (a) a 20 foot container carries 17.5 to 20 tonnes of wool and (b) a 40 foot container carries 35 to 40 tonnes of wool.4401Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that this information is not available within my portfolio.(2) (a) A 20 foot container will hold up to 20 tonnes of greasy wool, and lesser quantities (by weight) of scoured and carbonised wool or tops.(b) A forty foot container, in theory, would hold approximately double the amount held by a 20 foot container. However, transport regulations in a number of overseas countries limit the quantity in a forty foot container to about 26 tonnes of greasy wool. This makes the use of 40 foot containers in these countries much less attractive for greasy wool compared to 20 foot containers due to the higher freight rates involved.4402(Question No. 2985)29854402Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:How often, on what days and in what cities or regions did the employment committee of Cabinet meet in the (a) 3, (b) 6 and (c) 12 months immediately before 13 May 1998.4403Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Employment Committee of Cabinet met 4 times in the 12 month period 14 May 1997 to 13 May 1998. Consistent with longstanding practice, I am not prepared to disclose further details of meeting of Cabinet or its Committees.