1998-06-043817REPS481701998-06-04Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills4817r4834817Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.09:31:004817Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill of 1998 comes before this House without the unqualified support of any member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title that inquired into it. It arrives in the wake of substantial criticisms of it by the author of the most recent and most authoritative report on indigenous heritage protection in this country, the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt. It comes without any endorsement from the people whose interests it purports to protect, Australia's indigenous people.This government would do well to set this bill aside now, in the interests of good government, in the interests of Australia's international reputation and in the interests of equity and justice. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. The doom is for those this history is repeated on, much more so than those it is repeated by.This bill is yet another instrument of control over indigenous Australians. However well intentioned it may be, it is yet another instrument in a long line dating from the claiming of this continent for the British sovereign whereby those with power impose controls over matters of concern to powerless indigenous people without proper consultation with them and without their consent. What legitimacy can there be in this legislation when to the extent that indigenous people have been consulted they have expressed dissatisfaction with it? At no time, either through representative bodies, interested groups or individuals, has there been any attempt to obtain the informed consent of the people for whom this legislation is supposedly framed.Consistent with this imposed dictatorial model, the bill excludes indigenous people from involvement in decision making. Contrary to the recommendations of the Evatt report and the report of the minority in the parliamentary joint committee on this matter, indigenous people will have no role in determining the criteria for accredited state regimes, nor in the assessment of how those criteria will apply. Whilst being able to give evidence in issues that go to heritage significance and threats to sites, they will have no role in the evaluation of that evidence. They will advise neither the minister nor those acting on behalf of the minister. In the same old failed model they will be done unto, they will not do. They will be told, not asked.The bill is fundamentally flawed. It would be fatuous to say that the issues that are dealt with in this bill are simple and straightforward. It would beggar belief to say that all the answers are readily at hand. But this is not a government for hard decisions or complex problems. Whilst the 1984 bill applied the best advice and the most acceptable methods available at that time, the 1998 bill is anything but contemporary in its reflection of the understanding and more enlightened approaches that have emerged in the intervening 14 years.Australia has struggled to deal with the problem of treating indigenous heritage issues in a way that is sensitive to indigenous cultural values. This is a problem with many manifestations and it is at the heart of some of the questionable assumptions underpinning this bill. The bill persists with methods that assume that indigenous heritage can be protected by means and through processes that are intrinsically offensive to indigenous values, practices and beliefs. The positivism and legalism of mainstream culture demand methods that identify, locate, name, map and register for general information the sites of significance to the stories, rituals, songs and dreaming of our indigenous peoples. Traditional custodians are thereby placed in an impossible dilemma.The custodial responsibility that has kept knowledge exclusive to a particular group or gender through the generations is now confronted. They are asked to destroy a belief system to protect a site. It may be in the identification, in the naming or in the sharing of the knowledge or it may be through all of these and more that a sacred trust would be broken. They may well see their role as protecting places, not in providing more informative and inviting tourist maps. Even past our earlier history of mass dispossession, recent times have provided countless shameful stories of indigenous cultural heritage sites being brought to non-indigenous attention and then soon desecrated.In Alice Springs there is a place long known to the local indigenous people as the Dog Rock. It was of particular significance in the dreaming of some of them. Others came to know it too. They did not share those beliefs or an understanding of the significance of that place, but they knew its name. Today, right next to it is a fast food outlet and around its borders is a fence. Circling a narrow section near the top is a dog-collar. This sort of problem is hard to avoid when the juggernaut of development bears down on an indigenous community. But it is not impossible to deal with.As in many aspects of successful native title negotiations, the answers may well rest in the methods we use and our willingness to place respect for indigenous beliefs at the heart of the process. A negotiated agreement rather than a judicial determination is the aim, or should be the aim. Where traditional custodians have the opportunity to negotiate site clearance rather than seek to register and justify a myriad of individual locations, less trauma is possible for all concerned. The method allows traditional custodians to identify areas that are not exclusive in nature, where an area can be traversed without causing problems. It requires trust and respect. It offers the dominant culture the chance to be in contact with the indigenous culture without the contact being innately destructive.The bill suffers also from implied and explicit assumptions about the nature and scope of indigenous cultural heritage. In staying with the concept of indigenous tradition, it locks itself into a dated and patronising view that would have us see indigenous culture frozen at some point in time, with interest in indigenous heritage being a study within archaeology. It denies the fact that indigenous cultures are living, dynamic and adaptive. It readily accepts the place of ancient rock paintings within its scope, but would have trouble with including the works, the house or possessions, or the sources of inspiration of one of the great Aboriginal painters of more modern times.The horse was brought to North America by Europeans but assimilated into the way of life, art stories and cultures of native Americans long before they saw Europeans. Nobody seriously questions the place of the horse in the cultural heritage of native Americans of the plains and prairies. Similarly, artefacts such as glass, metals and cloth, some aspects of language and species of feral animals brought to this continent by outsiders became known by and assimilated into many indigenous groups long before they made direct contact with non-indigenous people. Glass and ceramics had largely replaced quartz and flint on the spearheads of many hunters for generations before their hunting grounds were taken from them. Living culture changes and adapts, and that accumulated heritage is worthy of protection at every stage of its development. The provisions of this bill would not protect areas and objects of recent or contemporary significance. The fact is that they should be protected.I intend now to briefly outline some of the 1998 bill's more obviously obnoxious aspects. This bill marks yet another retreat for the government from their constitutional, international and moral responsibilities. 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. This bill abrogates that responsibility. In the matter of constitutional responsibility the government has been just as quick to pass the buck.We have so recently celebrated—or, should I say, many of us celebrated—the 30th anniversary of the 1967 referendum recognising citizenship for indigenous Australians and conferring legislative responsibility for their welfare on the Commonwealth government, on this parliament. A focus of that legislative power, enshrined in section 51(xxvi) of our constitution, was articulated by Mason J, as he then was, in the Tasmanian Dams case, when he said:(Cultural heritage) is so much a characteristic or property of the people to whom it belongs that it is inseparably connected with them, so that the legislative power with respect to the people of a race necessarily extends to the making of (any) laws protecting their cultural heritage.Except in a very narrow and formal sense, this bill seeks to dispense with that responsibility.The avowed intent of the 1984 act was to see proper regimes for indigenous heritage protection established and maintained at state and territory level and to set up legislation of last resort at the Commonwealth level. All sides of contemporary debate on this issue expressed a desire to see these characteristics in the new legislation.Indeed, it is worth while quoting from the coalition policy before the last election, and asking whether this was a core or non-core promise. The conservatives' policy before the election stated:In government the coalition will: (a) review the Heritage Act; (b) ensure that mechanisms are in place to guarantee natural justice, thereby avoiding ministerial decisions like those recently overturned by the Federal Court; (c) seek a meeting of State and Territory Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs to (i) determine ways to ensure that traditional culture and religious beliefs are properly protected; (ii) seek a better integration of Commonwealth and States/ Territories Acts so that the Commonwealth Heritage Act takes into account State/Territory processes while retaining its role as a forum of last resort; and (iii) encourage States/Territories to review their own Acts to bring about greater consistency across Australia.This bill does not live up to coalition policy before the last election. The 1998 legislation fails on all points. The fact is that this bill delivers neither acceptable accreditation criteria for state and territory regimes nor comprehensive legislation of last resort for the Commonwealth. That is a flaw, and a significant flaw, on both those points—both crucial points; both coalition policy before the last election; both ignored in the framing of this bill.I endorse the recommendation on accreditation criteria made by the majority in the 11th report of the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Native Title. A move to require the states and territories to legislate to provide presumptive blanket protection is to be applauded. The present approach requiring traditional custodians to apply and argue for protection on a case by case basis is oppressively difficult. But it is patently inadequate to restrict accreditation criteria to substantive or legislative provisions as this bill does.As I commented in this place on another occasion, history has given people little faith that the states will deliver indigenous heritage protection without comprehensive oversight. Many problems of the past and the present stem as much from a failure to implement or apply existing law in a fair, equitable and effective way as they do from the absence of laws or inadequacies in their drafting. Having said that, we must remind ourselves that today, 14 years after the Commonwealth parliament passed an act designed to have suitable state and territory regimes in place to protect indigenous heritage, we have yet to achieve that goal.Will this government succeed, even by their own inadequate criteria? Can they name the state or territory regimes that pass the test? Will they name those that do not? How long before they see the system working? Unless the Commonwealth's accreditation criteria require the states and territories to implement and maintain processes and procedures that are equitable, accessible and sensitive to indigenous culture, then we will have achieved little—little, that is, except unburdening this government of a responsibility. That is what this legislation is about—passing the buck, abrogating our responsibilities that were given to us in the 1967 referendum and again throwing indigenous people to the mercy of the states and territories. Will the next generation be able to say, `We thought it was for the best' or `We didn't know'? I am afraid not.The shortcomings of the states and territories in dealing with the needs and rights of indigenous Australians were at the forefront of debate leading up to the 1967 referendum. They were a driving motivation for the shift in responsibility. In more recent times, the Hansard records of evidence before the parliamentary joint committee reviewing both this bill and the Native Title Amendment Bill are full of instances that point to the need for Commonwealth oversight in these matters. They speak of state laws guaranteeing indigenous people access to their lands in place since the 1920s but never enforced. They speak of processes for issuing exploration and mining licences not being followed and breaches of those permits not attracting any penalty. That is the record of the states. They are a litany of abuses of the rights of countless indigenous Australians.And what of this notion of the `national interest'? No actions by the Commonwealth minister for the protection of indigenous culture are permitted under this act unless such protection would be in the national interest. Even the coalition members of the parliamentary joint committee had problems with this one and have asked for amendments to clarify its meaning. The term `national interest' is often accepted as code for a process whereby large scale development projects will always take precedence over heritage values. It is clearly intended to restrict the scope of the Commonwealth's jurisdiction to cases that are somehow extraordinary or exceptional. Its narrow application will not only severely limit the cases that might come to the Commonwealth minister's attention; it will cut off many applicants from the appeals and reviews available under Commonwealth legislation but absent in state regimes. This is an unacceptable denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. This provision, apart from delivering injustice to indigenous Australians, will certainly see the minister of the day shoot themselves regularly in the political foot.If the aim of this is to so narrowly define the Commonwealth minister's powers that he or she will be rarely troubled, then the government is in for a rude shock. The day to day reality of politics will almost certainly mean that national interest will equate to national media attention and degrees of political heat. Applicants will soon learn that a blowtorch under the ministerial backside via a 7.30 Report or A Current Affair investigation is the sure way to see a resolution of a particular heritage issue as being in the national interest. The day to day political definition will be arbitrary and discriminatory. It will favour the articulate and media savvy over ordinary people. It will guarantee public televised slanging matches between parties rather than proper investigation, mediation and resolution by agreement. And it will give the minister no peace.The Victorian government, in its evidence to the parliamentary joint committee investigating this bill, saw no problem in a proper and full definition of `legislation of last resort'. To the contrary, their representatives saw it in this way:If things failed here at state level, from the point of view of Aboriginal people, there was always recourse to the Commonwealth. . . I think that is certainly a model that has been successful here in Victoria. Had the state heritage protection regime been less effective, the Aboriginal people of Victoria would still have had that clear avenue of resort to the Commonwealth . . . I do not think that we found any great difficulty in the existence of that avenue of last resort to the Commonwealth if things were perceived to be failing to operate successfully to protect the Aboriginal heritage in Victoria.This evidence begs a question: if this is the view coming from the conservative government in a major state, who is driving this agenda for change? In which dark recesses of the back bench might we find them lurking? The coalition members of the parliamentary joint committee cannot be so categorised. Witnesses at that committee reported that they found coalition members to be receptive, responsive and sympathetic.Why does the government wish to bring on yet another divisive issue in their crusade for reconciliation? Think again of what this legislation seeks to protect. Many heritage issues are, of their nature, small to all but those directly affected. Indeed they may be, by their very nature, invisible to the wider community. I would seek here to paraphrase a key thread of evidence put to the committee: `Surely we must hold that, consistent with our international and constitutional responsibilities, our international reputation and our self-respect, it is the very act of protecting indigenous heritage that is in the national interest.'I would remind you all again that we cannot focus on this bill in isolation. We live at a critical time in relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The quality of these relationships has taken on a special significance in the way we see ourselves and the way others see us. Every person in this place, bar one, has committed to reconciliation between our peoples by the turn of the century. We have a long way to travel along that road. As the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) recently said:We should acknowledge the realities of our shared history and its continuing effects.That history is one of dispossession of indigenous people, the debasement of their culture, and the widespread desecration of sites and objects sacred to their cultures. It has seen sacred objects stolen and scattered far from the places in which they were created and from the people that created them. It has seen their people murdered and their remains preserved and put on show for the amusement of strangers. The European concept of private ownership has determined that across the length and breadth of this land and across the seas there are private and institutional repositories of priceless indigenous cultural artefacts. It is a heritage that to this day is denied to the descendants of those who created it. We cannot be reconciled until these issues are directly and honestly addressed.Surely, above all, the land is at the heart of indigenous cultural heritage. All the forms and living things that make up the Australian landscape—dear to us all—are the sources of the indigenous sense of being. We cannot protect their culture whilst denying them access to land. This government would deny them all practical access to the one right that empowers them to be custodians of their birthright. That right is the right to negotiate. Proud peoples, free and equal in this land, should not have to look forever to some white patriarch to defend their heritage. They have the means at hand and we should not countenance taking it away from them.Native title and its attendant right to negotiate are the keys to the health and survival of Aboriginal culture and heritage. Their removal will be cultural genocide. There will be nowhere on earth to hide from the shame and no passage of time will lift the guilt from our descendants. We know what we do. This bill would be obnoxious in its own right, in the light of what we know in 1998, even if it were implemented in isolation. But it is not in isolation; the government is going to the electorate seeking the right to extinguish native title in all but name. Vultures, hungry to dismember it, are circling the Northern Territory land rights act. This government has given comfort to the dark side of political life to such an extent that we will see committed and unapologetic racists sitting in our Senate before too long.We live in times and with decisions that will determine the character of this nation into the next millennium. We have choices to make. The first positive choice will be to set this bill aside, revisit it in a spirit of reconciliation, and frame new legislation to protect and perpetuate a heritage fundamental to the meaning of the word `Australian'.The Labor Party will be voting against this bill, both at the second reading and at the third reading. When the bill comes to the Senate, we will seek to move substantial amendments to hold the government to its election commitment to implement the principles that were espoused by Justice Evatt in her review of the Heritage Protection Act and, indeed, to pick up some of the points properly acknowledged by the majority in the native title committee reports. (Time expired)10:01:004821Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The member for Banks (Mr Melham) has made a fine speech this morning, and I have no doubt that he has made it sincerely and from the heart. But there is a hollow ring to it. There is a hollow ring to it because this particular bill, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 amends an act which has needed amendment now for many years. But the opposition during its 13 years in government had every opportunity to fix the obvious and major problems with the current legislation, and I think it has to be asked by the Australian people: why do we hear such a speech now, when there was every opportunity in past years to do something about this?The current government is also sincere in doing something about the obvious and tremendous problems with the current act. This bill today is timely. It is timely because the legislation, having been introduced in 1984 and not having worked, is now to be fixed up.The government will not set the bill aside because of the concerns expressed by the member for Banks. The amendments to which the member for Banks refers can be made in the Senate, and there is a time constraint on that. The parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, as the member well knows, reported only last week, and it needs time to consider the reports and the recommendations. I can advise the House that those recommendations which may lead to amendments the government may wish to put forward will be put forward when this bill reaches the Senate.The current 1984 bill was a temporary measure, if you like; I think everybody recognises that. I also think we all recognise, on both sides of the House, that it really has been nothing more than an abysmal failure. The result has been to bog things down in legal nonsense. I guess there are many, many examples of that—and we all know of the most famous example, which is the Hindmarsh Island bridge case.I have often thought what went on in the Hindmarsh issue did the Aboriginal people of this country no service at all. No matter where the sincerity might have been, I think the people of Australia were very concerned to see what was happening—the process that was there, the role of the lawyers, and so on. I think it is in everybody's interest to get matters like this resolved quickly and properly in the interests of the Aboriginal people of this country.The reforms in this bill do provide protection for Aboriginal interests, and the bill does shift responsibility to the states. I think it is appropriate that the states will now run these heritage matters on behalf of the Commonwealth. However, the Commonwealth still has a role to play because it is still there as a government of last resort; matters can still come back to the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth sees it as being very important that, in the first instance, every matter should not come to the Commonwealth; it should be dealt with by the states.The argument we have seen presented here this morning against the bill that you cannot trust the states falls over, because anyone who knows anything about this subject will know of the mechanism that has been set up in the Northern Territory. It is supported by all sides of this debate. It is a very good process and does protect the heritage. The second reading speech said:In order for a state or territory to achieve accreditation it will need to include a number of features in its heritage protection legislation. Firstly, the state or territory will need to provide protection of significant indigenous areas and objects—and they will have to provide protection for those areas and objects—and that protection must be backed up by adequate penalties. Indigenous people must be recognised as the main source of information about the significance of those areas and objects. Secondly, to ensure that indigenous people can speak freely and, if necessary, in confidence under the state or territory legislation, it must provide protection for confidential indigenous information and prevent it from being publicly revealed if such a revelation would cause harm or distress. However, while these restrictions are necessary, other parties must still be treated fairly and be given an opportunity to put their views and be told the reasons for decisions to protect those areas or objects.I think this fairly provides protection for all sides. It indicates that the states can develop minimum levels of accreditation which will, in fact, have the necessary protection built in.The features of the bill we are discussing this morning are these. The bill provides for accreditation by the Commonwealth minister of state/territory heritage protection regimes which meet certain minimum standards; the bill requires applicants to exhaust state/territory processes before seeking protection under the Commonwealth act; and, where state/territory regimes are accredited, the bill limits applications to cases where protection may be in the national interest.The bill establishes a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection to assist the minister in the administration of the bill. The bill encourages applications to be resolved by negotiation and/or mediation facilitated by the director. That is an excellent idea. The bill provides for the separation of assessments of significance undertaken by the director from the minister's decision about whether or not to grant protection. The bill requires that significance be assessed according to indigenous traditions, observances, customs and beliefs and that primacy be given to the views of indigenous people in making assessments of significance. Finally, the bill provides protection for culturally sensitive information disclosed in the course of administering the bill.One of the problems that I have seen with development proposals in North Queensland over recent years—be they for housing, new roads, industrial estates, farming or the like—has been the tendency for a few small sectional groups of indigenous people to use what the community sees as frivolous claims of a connection to a certain place or location late in the game as a tactic to hold up much needed or desirable development. For example, in my patch in North Queensland, these sorts of frivolous and vexatious claims have been made against developments such as Port Hinchinbrook and the Sun Metals zinc refinery.One of the important points of this bill is that it finds an excellent balance between the rights and interests of indigenous people as well as the community and the developers. Where indigenous groups are unsatisfied or unsuccessful in pursuing all possible options under an accredited state or territory government to gain protection for a particular site or area of land, then they will be able to apply directly to the Commonwealth. It will be possible to gain emergency protection for an area under immediate threat while a particular application is being considered.On the other side, and just as importantly, the minister or the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection will be able to reject an application that is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious. What people want more than anything else today is certainty—certainty to be able to protect the things that need protection, certainty to be able to proceed with farming, with mining or with the construction of a sewerage pipe where that work is deemed necessary and does not intrude upon sites of significance. That is what this legislation does, and I support it wholeheartedly.10:10:004823Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—There are many things that make Australia a great and unique nation. Despite the occasional—to use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—deranged outbursts from people like the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), Australia has been remarkably successful over the last decade or so in building a society built on a fair go; a society where tolerance, pluralism and respect for the cultural diversity of our society are given considerable significance. These are matters which I believe make Australia a great nation.A key part of that type of society has been the recognition of Aboriginal Australia as a unique part of our heritage. Aboriginal Australians have been most generous in light of their historical experience in sharing their traditions with the broader Australian community. Australians should be proud of the fact that we have on this continent the oldest continuous culture in the world—that is, Aboriginal culture. Over recent decades there has been a real renaissance in that culture reflected by the work of a whole range of Aboriginal painters, writers and historians. That type of culture is one of the reasons why this country is so attractive to so many overseas visitors. It is in recognition of that sort of background that this bill is unacceptable. In the words of Justice Evatt, there are fundamental flaws in the bill. She states:The Bill is fundamentally flawed, and weakens considerably the protection available from the Commonwealth for areas and objects of significance to Aboriginal people.Justice Evatt, in correspondence to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, describes the defects as follows:An applicant for protection has to show that it is in the "national interest" to make a protection order, even an interim or emergency order, where accreditation has been given to a State or Territory system; this is incompatible with maintaining the Commonwealth procedure as a last resort mechanism.She continues:The bill provides for the accreditation of State and Territory heritage protection regimes, without ensuring that those regimes meet the strict minimum standards set out in the 1996 Report . . . There is no provision for Aboriginal people to exercise any control over the process or to have responsibility for decisions relating to the protection of their significant heritage, nor any provision for an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisory Council as recommended.This bill, in the words of an eminent judge, Justice Evatt—and a great many other people in the community—is so fundamentally flawed that the government ought to take it back to the drawing board and start again.In 1967, as the member for Banks indicated, the Australian people overwhelmingly gave the Commonwealth powers in respect of Aboriginal Australia. This bill represents a massive retreat—in fact, I would suggest betrayal—of that expression of the will of the Australian people. Indeed, the Commonwealth, in addition to having the will of the Australian people on these matters, has clear-cut international obligations. I think its retreat from this important area of public policy presents significant problems.The bill withdraws the Commonwealth's involvement in Aboriginal heritage matters except in very limited circumstances. As the second reading speech states:Honourable members should note that these are a minimum and they will in no way prevent states or territories from going further if they wish or retaining their existing legislation if it already represents best practice. In recognition of the importance of the decision to accredit a state or territory, it will be subject to disallowance by the parliament. But, with conferring powers on the states in these matters, I do not think anyone seriously expects that there is not going to be significant retreat. I think one would have to be an extraordinary optimist to expect states and territories to go further than the existing position that the Commonwealth has. This is a disaster, because in the Northern Territory, for example, which several speakers have referred to, and as the parliamentary committee has indicated, what is regarded as best practice in relation to Aboriginal heritage matters currently prevails. This is largely as a result of the Commonwealth having set the standards by implementing its own legislation. In fact, the Northern Territory is a very sound argument for national standards in relation to these matters.As I indicated, it is unrealistic to expect other states to maintain high standards without ongoing Commonwealth pressure. The real risk is that, after accreditation, best practice may well be eroded. For example, under the regime proposed in this bill, the Northern Territory could amend its legislation to reduce access rights, it could confine the definition of sacred sites and it could replace blanket protection that it currently provides with an `on-application' system.Even in my own state of Victoria, I believe there are powerful arguments as to why it is very difficult, particularly with conservative state governments, to expect progress on these fundamental matters. Despite my well-known concerns about a number of the Victorian government's policies, nonetheless, on race issues, issues in relation to multiculturalism, it certainly mouths appropriate rhetoric. But one only has to cast one's mind back to 1987 when the present government was in opposition when, through quite opportunistic action in blocking important Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation in Victoria in the upper house, it brought about the need for the Commonwealth to amend the Aboriginal heritage legislation in this place in order to ensure that there was an appropriate regime in Victoria for Aboriginal heritage protection.So, whether one talks about the Northern Territory or about Victoria, I believe all the straws in the wind certainly reinforce the need for the Commonwealth to be the pacesetter and the trendsetter in relation to these issues. The Commonwealth ought not to be able to avoid that responsibility, given its constitutional powers as conferred in 1967 and its international obligations.This bill does provide for the wholesale withdrawal of the Commonwealth where states are accredited. In my view, this is going to lead to a lack of consistency and certainty in the application of Aboriginal heritage regimes. Whilst recognising the primacy of the states with respect to planning and land management issues, as a minimum the Commonwealth must provide the statute of last resort in case a situation arises, as I would expect in many areas, where state legislation was inadequate or not applied properly. As I said earlier, ongoing pressure from the Commonwealth on the states to achieve acceptable outcomes is an absolute necessity.We need to clearly prevent a diminution of existing standards. This means that minimum standards in the bill need to be much more prescriptive than those currently applied in this bill. There needs to be an ongoing monitoring of accredited state regimes through an organisation such as the foreshadowed Aboriginal cultural heritage advisory council.The areas where minimum standards are simply inadequate in this bill and where attention needs to be given are specified in the report of the parliamentary committee as including protection of areas and objects of historical significance to indigenous people. The proposals in this bill are limited to the protection of traditional sites and objects. As the member for Banks made abundantly clear, there are a range of sites and objects that arise from the historical post-European arrival period of this country that, arguably, under this legislation will not receive protection from the Commonwealth. There is no requirement for the states to actually achieve minimum standards with respect to sites and objects of historical significance—only traditional ones. That is a significant defect that ought to be remedied.The legislation ought to make provision for emergency and interim protection. It ought to make provision for blanket protection of significant areas and objects. It ought to make provisions which ensure indigenous involvement in processes—in particular, assessments of significance and threats being made by relevant indigenous people. Access rights of indigenous people to areas and objects situated on crown land or under the Crown or its instrumentalities ought to be recognised as a minimum standard, and they are not within this legislation.Rights and reasons and external merits review of decisions regarding protection ought to be provided as a minimum standard for accreditation of the states and territories. As a minimum standard there ought to be protection of culturally sensitive material as broad as that provided under section 59 of the bill.I would contend that this bill does represent a major retreat by the Commonwealth from an area where the Australian people, and indeed the international community, expects this Commonwealth parliament to be pre-eminent. It provides a quite inadequate framework against a background where I think we can argue, based on experience, that states and territories are simply not going to be suitably rigorous in relation to upholding standards. For that reason, the bill ought to, as I said some time ago, be withdrawn at this point and seriously rewritten.(Quorum formed)10:24:004825Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—The bill which is before us, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , introduces a very significant and proper decision by the government to recognise that business, developers and the community need to have a more direct and, if you like, one-stop shop approach. The issue of second-guessing or double jeopardy that so frequently exists in a lot of law today is not fair and, of course, creates huge costs in litigation. The reality is that this is an important issue because, throughout legislation—particularly legislation in relation to Aboriginal people—we have this situation of second-guessing, as has been stressed to us. The attempt made to use the Racial Discrimination Act as a second-guessing operation in the Native Title Act is another example of both Commonwealth and state legislation attempting to do the same job.The government has quite properly, therefore, re-presented this legislation in such a fashion that the states—particularly in relation to heritage aspects linked to land management—will have the prime responsibility for addressing Aboriginal heritage issues when they arise. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth is retaining a power which is available if, in the opinion of the minister, there is a situation where the decisions taken in the state arena cannot be justified. That, to me, makes a lot of sense. This whole issue is addressed in the legislation which is before us.I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the reality of the use and abuse of laws of this nature. Nobody questions the right of Aboriginal people to have their heritage protected. Nobody questions their right to a land rights regime. It is interesting that yesterday morning I was the guest of Anaconda Nickel, which is a mining development near Leonora. I visited the development not that long ago. Anaconda Nickel at Murrin Murrin is at the moment spending $1,000 million to create a very innovative world-first nickel development. As the people of Burnie have just discovered, to be successful in mining today does not just mean that if you have a resource someone will buy your product; you are obliged to have a process and be able to deliver a product. Be it paper pulp, nickel or cadmium, you have to be able to deliver it at a competitive price into world markets.This particular development employs 3,000 people at the moment, including a large number of Aboriginal people. Andrew Forrest, the Chief Executive, is in fact a descendant of John Forrest, ex-Premier of Western Australia and of course an outstanding figure in Australian history as an explorer. This young man has, I am sure, used some of his background skills to negotiate with Aboriginal people in that district to give them opportunities and in fact money—$1 million a year. But the important aspect is that they have an opportunity to gain employment. Two of the people concerned were present at the breakfast yesterday—Sadie and Daniel. They are out standing individuals in their community because they recognise that the best thing they can do for their people is to get them employment in Australian society as it exists today and encourage them, as we discussed yesterday, to get their kids to school.They were negotiating, as the people who had lived in the region almost literally forever, with Anaconda Nickel and they were getting the outcomes that I think we would all approve of, like jobs and financial assistance to address the real problems that exist. Out of the blue, from Perth comes the Aboriginal Legal Service with a couple of out-of-towners to attempt to use the laws of this parliament to get in on the act. Their intentions were to delay the development, just as we have got Mr Yanner in Queensland stopping a bridge. For what? He was not consulted on the building of the bridge. It is a little bridge; it is not even a big one. They go to all these different court cases.It was interesting up there because the local Aboriginal people actually had a protest parade against the intrusion of the Perth based Aboriginal Legal Service getting in on the act when they were getting a great development for their district that was going to employ, I think, 600 permanent employees, with the additional schooling and everything that will arise from that. You cannot have all these people, or even some of them, living in your district without seeing better schooling for all the people who lived there before. You suddenly get other amenities. You might get a nightclub, you might get all sorts of things. It happens when you get that sort of development. Yet here were these people from the Aboriginal Legal Service trying to abuse the laws of Australia to stop something that all the local people of all races wanted.This is the side of all this sort of legislation that good members of parliament have got to take into account. We write legislation with good intention. We have got to make sure that it is just not a process for people with secondary agendas. If you are anti-development, form the Anti-development Party and propose legislation to this House that says, `We are against development.' The Labor Party has demonstrated that in the past when they stopped the Wesley Vale pulp mill in Tasmania. Then they wanted to come in here and cry crocodile tears to us about the fact that that worn-out old mill can no longer compete in world markets and has consequently sacked its work force. If you have got an anti-development agenda, have the courage to stand up and say you have got one. Don't go scurrying around the back blocks finding the fine print in the heritage legislation, which was put there for the use of Aboriginal people to protect their heritage.The Aboriginal people admit to us that there are no heritage problems in the Murrin Murrin area; it was a bit of desert. They probably visited it infrequently because prior to the arrival of white men I do not think it even carried many kangaroos. That was the fundamental fact. The local people knew it, and I have seen the photographs of these people going down the street with their banners saying, `We want this project. We are not going to be manipulated by middle-class Aboriginals who have got an anti-development agenda.' I think the government has assisted those Aboriginals who want jobs for their kids and would like to be able to think that they met their own financial requirements and had better schools and better medical facilities and all those things that come associated with development in their areas. That is what they wanted. Yet people were trying to use these laws.The member for Murray (Mrs Stone) has drawn our attention to the fact that heritage legislation was used to stop the development of a big cheese factory for Kraft in her electorate in Victoria. Who won from that? Someone had a second agenda, the agenda being to stop development, and they used these laws. That is not what the laws were for. This particular legislation, by giving a single right to state governments to manage, with a supervisory role practically for the Commonwealth, is an excellent response. We will protect heritage but in fact we are not going to give overlying levels of legislation and we are not, hopefully, creating laws which are not used for the purpose that the parliament intended.I will add some other examples, because they come to mind and they are serious. Wherever we look in Western Australia, we are surprised to find out what people do under native title claims. Typically, the application is now made by an Aboriginal person, frequently not local, and their legal firm, on behalf of a known tribal group, the Nyungar people. We do not see these matters come to court. We do not see the Federal Court grant land rights, which is the intention of the act. There are closed door negotiations over money. And when the developer, usually a mining company, suddenly discover that they cannot get anywhere other than by paying some money and they make a financial offer, the other requirement is for a confidentiality agreement. If you are making an application on behalf of your tribal group and you succeed, why would you want to keep it a secret? I can tell you why: because you do not intend to give any of the money to the tribal group; you plan to keep it all for yourself. And that is what is happening.Unlike Murrin, where a community agreement was reached, you had all these people snipping away at the edges because they saw somewhere else someone get some money, and seeing that money they thought, `If he could, I could.' It is interesting to look at the circumstances that occurred in New South Wales with Crescent Head, where again the New South Wales government was prepared to admit it had not met the conditions of the Native Title Act in subdividing some land. It negotiated with the Aboriginal people and said, `We're prepared to pay compensation of $1.5 million,' which, I am advised, was 1½ times the value of the land that had been sold.The interesting thing about it was that, at that point in time, one would think, considering their well-publicised commitment to the land, the Aboriginal people would have said, `You give that money back to the people you've sold the land to. Compensate them so they can vacate our land and we can go back to having ceremonies.' Did they? No. They took the money, a symbol of Northern Hemisphere culture. That is what they did. Should we be legislating for that? Is it a fact that heritage can be sold? These are the questions that other speakers from the opposition might attend to address.Another aspect of heritage that I think is of great importance is that the word `elder' is now sprayed around in the press. I read names from my old home town of Carnarvon of people now portrayed as Aboriginal elders who I know are not elders. They have no tribal law. They have no tribal association. They are frequently people of very small Aboriginal blood, I suppose, but the press chooses to call them `elders' or they label themselves that.But I know a couple of elders and one said to me one day, `I've got no difficulty in demonstrating to you I'm an elder. I'll take my clothes off. I will show you the scars and I will show you how I achieved them or tell you how I achieved them in initiation.' Another such person said to me, `When it comes to heritage, we didn't have sacred sites. We had sacred objects. By the nature of our itinerant occupation of the land'—they moved constantly for the purpose of gaining food—`those objects moved with us.' He mentioned how someone who had been properly initiated had to be able to be read those objects with their hands and, presumably, recite what was on them.People have very cleverly focused on land as compared with objects. When one thinks logically of the Aboriginal lifestyle pre-colonisation—or whatever you want to call it—it is very logical that, if you were a constantly mobile community, your great interest would be in objects which you could take with you—and they did. Some of these issues need to be understood because, even in the writing of these sorts of bills, we apply a huge amount of European culture and, of course, those who promote the Aboriginal cause so constantly have been very clever to bring European and Northern Hemisphere culture into everything they do: hats, flags—never to be found in fundamental Aboriginal culture. Some of these facts need to be understood.I support this legislation. I think it is highly appropriate that we recognise that the skills of land management—records and data and everything—do exist with state governments. I reject the argument, particularly in Western Australia, that state governments are somehow all racist. I have reminded this House before that the Premier of Western Australia has an adopted Aboriginal child whom he raised as a single father and whom, to his great credit, he never mentions in his own defence when people in this place and elsewhere have thrown racist allegations against him: he has never once personally referred to that situation. That is how genuine he is and how committed he is to that girl—and she is a lovely girl. No-one in this House who screams racism over some of the issues—as they do—can make that claim. He did not do it as a politician; he did it when he was a businessman.A person like that can capably protect the heritage of Aboriginal people in WA and is committed to it, and I am sure the opposition would not tell us that the Labor opposition lacks that capacity in Western Australia. So why not put that control where it is closer to the issues? That is basically how this legislation is proposed to work, but it retains the right of the Commonwealth to intervene if there is clear evidence that things are not being done in a fair and appropriate way.10:43:004828Dargavel, Steven, MPMr DARGAVELKP6FraserALP00—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 effectively removes the Commonwealth from exercising its responsibility to protect Aboriginal culture and heritage. The consequence of this legislation will be that indigenous people will have even less power to protect their culture and heritage. This is a culture that was systematically damaged through the practices of the past, including those visited on the stolen generation. All of those Aboriginal babies stolen from their families and placed in institutions and other care—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—All of them?SD4Dargavel, Steven, MPMr DARGAVEL—All of them, in my view, were denied the cultural opportunities that would have otherwise been available to them had they been allowed to stay with their families. Perhaps not all of them, but it goes without saying that it was the vast majority. This government's response to the stolen generation disaster has been wanting. Part of the reason we think the government should apologise to the stolen generation is that there must be recognition of the mistakes of the past. Without that recognition we, the current generation, are condemned to repeat them. This bill repeats some of those mistakes. It is about cultural dispossession.Several reviews of the 1984 act have been conducted. The most important of these was in 1996—the report by Justice Elizabeth Evatt. This bill was introduced on 2 April 1998 and referred to the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund. The joint committee conducted an inquiry into the bill, and the report was printed at the start of June.The 1984 act provides for the Commonwealth to be used as a last resort for state government and territory government legislation which did not provide adequate protection for areas and objects of significance to indigenous Australians. Justice Evatt's submission to the joint committee inquiry into the bill begins with the statement:The bill is fundamentally flawed, and weakens considerably the protection available from the Commonwealth for areas and objects of significance to Aboriginal people.The bill reduces the Commonwealth's role in protecting indigenous heritage, divesting this power instead to the states and territories. The role of the Commonwealth to date, which has been as a last resort mechanism for decisions made by governments under state and territory legislation, is eroded. The committee expressed concern that the bill does not provide a `comprehensive last resort function'. Even coalition members of the committee did not sign up to this bill comprehensively. Yet again the coalition backbenchers have been ignored.This bill is meant to set minimum standards by which state and territory regimes would be accredited, but it fails. It has an inadequate set of minimum standards for accreditation. The minimum standards for accreditation fall well short of standards recommended in the 1996 Evatt report and those stipulated in the bill for the Commonwealth procedures. The standards are set in general terms and omit important criteria. There is no requirement for the minister to consult with indigenous people in making a decision to accredit.The previous speaker, the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), spoke in part of the difficulties that arise when indigenous people are not consulted about development in their areas. He talked about people with secondary agendas from out of town and so on. At the very least it is reasonable to consult with indigenous people about the impact of decisions that infringe upon or relate to their cultural heritage.The bill also fails because there is no requirement for state administration of heritage protection legislation to be monitored after receiving accreditation. Once it has been rubber stamped it is pretty much a blank cheque for the states to do what they will. The committee report on the 1996 Evatt report endorsed blanket presumptive protection, recommending that this should be part of the minimum standards set for state and territory accreditation. That has been omitted from this bill. The committee found that the minimum standards in the bill do not match those the Commonwealth sets for itself for the procedures to be followed when applying to the Commonwealth for protection. It is somewhat anomalous, in my view, to be about accrediting states to a lower standard than the Commonwealth would apply to itself.There is no requirement in this bill for Aboriginal people to have a reasonable role in the protection of their heritage. It is essentially a patronising bill.Turning to the national interest issue, in contrast to the role of the Commonwealth as a last resort mechanism under the 1984 legislation, in applications made under accredited state and territory regimes the Commonwealth can only play a role when the protection of indigenous heritage can be demonstrated to be in the national interest under this bill. As Evatt points out, indigenous heritage per se should be considered to be in the national interest. Areas and objects are significant to particular communities in particular areas, but these regional concerns do not necessarily mean that each individual site or object could be said by this government to be of national significance of itself. Protection of indigenous heritage needs to be seen as Australia's national responsibility to the indigenous people of our land but that is not reflected in this bill. The Commonwealth's stipulation that it will consider protection only when it can be seen to be in the national interest is effectively code for no protection at all. Effectively it cuts the Commonwealth out of being an address of last resort and demonstrates this government's appalling attitude towards and lack of commitment to our indigenous peoples.The bill sets up a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection. In so doing it responds to Justice Evatt's 1996 report, which recommended a separation of the decision making on significance and the final decision on protection. This is welcomed by many Aborigines. However, it is of great concern that the person assessing the significance of an Aboriginal site or object and whether or not it is under threat is not required, under the bill, to be indigenous or have any qualifications relevant to indigenous Australians and their heritage. There is no provision in the bill for Aboriginals to be involved in either the accreditation procedures or the Commonwealth procedures. The previous speaker addressed the problems of lack of consultation. It is not particularly difficult to require that indigenous people be consulted—it is a minimum the absence of which in this bill condemns it indeed.The accreditation standards do not include the establishment of Aboriginal heritage bodies. They should. It is easy to see how the procedures advocated in this bill would result in the protection of Aboriginal heritage being run by white bureaucrats or bureaucrats with little or no understanding of the cultural significance of the decisions they are being required to undertake. The absence of the requirement to consult will probably see fairly shonky decisions. This is highly reminiscent of Australia's previous attitude towards the indigenous populations, an attitude which I would have hoped we had moved on from by now. It suggests that Aboriginal people are not the best people to assess the protection needs and value of their own heritage. That is a condescending attitude that says they are unable to take responsibility for their own heritage, that Australia must take this responsibility for them, that the states can do a better job and that they are irrelevant to their own cultural heritage.The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore), who introduced this bill, speaks of the need for negotiation to be central to the issue of heritage protection. Is the negotiation then that he is advocating between different groups of bureaucrats and mining development companies? Surely, the negotiation should be between indigenous Australians and those developers.In introducing this bill, the government is missing an opportunity to reform the interim 1984 act through its failure to listen to the people at the heart of the debate, those whose heritage this bill effectively compromises. It is making a clear statement to Aborigines that their views and needs are largely irrelevant.To use a European parallel, if there were a proposal to put a Seven Eleven store inside St Paul's Cathedral—a site which has cultural significance to, say, Anglo-Saxon Christians—there would be an outcry and the proposal would not get very far. The difficulty that indigenous people often confront in theses sorts of debates is that the population at large does not necessarily have the same degree of regard for their cultural heritage as many people in the community might have for a large cathedral. That does not mean that the significance of indigenous sites or cultural heritage is not just as important to indigenous people as, say, St Paul's Cathedral might be to a practising Christian.As a result of the lack of regard or understanding so evidenced by some of the speeches of coalition members in this debate, there should be a form of protection that the Commonwealth exercises. Good government means government for all peoples. It includes government for minorities that might not enjoy the same degree of regard that mainstream communities enjoy. That is what good government should be about. But this government is not about good government. It is not about protecting those people who are weakest or most marginalised in our community.This bill is a continuation of that approach which is about a pitch to only the mainstream and largely ignores those people in our community who are quite often marginalised. The shadow minister made the observation that the bill is not consistent with the coalition's pre-election policy. I think that point needs to be recalled. It is a point that will be relevant when the Senate considers this bill and, hopefully, will end up largely amending it. He also made the point, which is worth remaking, that recently we had the 30th anniversary of the conferring upon the Commonwealth of the power to make laws that protect indigenous people. It is ironic and quite sad that after such an important occasion this government is about taking away its responsibility conferred by that power and referring it to the states which do have, historically, a very sorry history of protecting indigenous peoples.The leadership of the Northern Territory or states like Western Australia do not give me any hope that they will be actively protecting the interests of indigenous people when it comes to being at loggerheads with large powerful corporations. That is not to suggest that our position is reflective of an anti-development agenda, as suggested by the previous speaker. What our position does suggest is that there should be consultation with the people affected by things like development, that the people who are responsible to protect their own cultural heritage are in fact capable of at least having a say about it and that, if their concerns are totally ignored by states like, say, Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory, they have some last resort to the Commonwealth.If this government is so keen on its own ability to run things, then it should not have any concern about it exercising powers that it would have under Labor amendments to this bill. What is the government scared of in maintaining some power to be a measure of last resort? Has it drawn the conclusion that the Labor opposition has drawn—that it cannot really run the place? Is that the concern? What it is doing is divesting its responsibilities or its powers to the states. They are responsibilities that the Commonwealth is able to exercise, were conferred to it by referendum, and it should exercise.10:58:004831Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Firstly, may I say what a pleasure it was to listen for the member for Fraser (Mr Dargavel) making a contribution in this House and what a matter of regret it will be for the House that his seat has been abolished in the recent redistribution and that he will have to find other measures and mechanisms of returning to the parliament in due course.The debate thus far has revealed the ambit of issues and the range of disagreements that exist between the government and the opposition on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998. In short, they can be summarised by saying that, whilst this bill brings forward a number of worthwhile measures which reflect some of the recommendations of the Evatt report, it fails to do so in a comprehensive way. It also includes a number of proposals which were rejected in the Evatt inquiry, which would significantly weaken the capacity of arrangements to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander areas and objects of particular significance.The worthwhile things that are included in this bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum and include the fact that it will establish a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection to assist the minister in the administration of the bill. It moves to encourage resolution of conflicts with respect to applications by negotiation or mediation and that will be facilitated by the director.The bill provides for the separation of assessments of significance by the director from the minister's decision about whether or not to grant protection. It requires that significance be assessed according to indigenous traditions and that primacy be given to the views of indigenous people in making assessments. It provides for the protection of culturally sensitive information, protection of disclosure of that information, and it has other worthwhile elements which we support now and which we will be supporting throughout the course of the passage of this legislation through the processes of the Senate.Unfortunately, the bill also includes elements which distort the good that is intended. It weakens considerably the protection that was thought appropriate to be extended to that heritage and which underlay the recommendations of the Evatt report. The areas where the bill is flawed are these: an applicant for protection has to show that it is in the national interest to make a protection order, even an interim or emergency order, where accreditation has been given to a state or territory system. That does not fit with what has hitherto been recognised as an important priority this Commonwealth has always asserted, that is, that it is in the national government's remit to make final determinations in these areas, rather than having processes conclusively determined at a state level where hitherto and possibly henceforth the level of protection that has been extended to these heritage issues has been less than that which has been granted at Commonwealth levels.It is not entirely wrong to provide for some form of accreditation of state and territory heritage protection regimes, but this bill does so without ensuring that those regimes meet the strict minimum standards that were set out in the Evatt report of 1996 or those established for Commonwealth procedures by this bill. So the difficulty we face is that we have a framework which appears on its face to set high standards but which then condones a process of accreditation of state regimes, which basically takes these issues out of the hands of the Commonwealth without setting in place a proper framework for ensuring that state regimes are only admitted to the framework if they meet adequate benchmarks. So the inevitable will happen, and those issues will be resolved at a state level. If the level of protection accorded under those state regimes does not measure up to that which we would insist on in this parliament, this bill allows that deficiency to go unremedied. That is very unfortunate.There is no provision for Aboriginal people to exercise any control over the process, or to have responsibility for decisions relating to the protection of their significant heritage, nor any provision for an Aboriginal cultural heritage advisory council, as recommended. So those are the deficiencies that Labor has identified. We will be moving appropriate amendments in the Senate to deal with these issues.Labor comes to this debate having set in place strong legislative frameworks intended to give significant protection to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' indigenous interests. The Australian Labor Party's national platform commits us to strengthening heritage protection legislation designed to deliver improved economic, social and cultural outcomes for all Australia. A very detailed critique of this legislation has been prepared by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I am sure that all members who have taken an interest in this legislation will have had the chance to look through those criticisms.I think it is fair to say that the work that has been done by ATSIC draws very heavily on the work of Justice Elizabeth Evatt, and correctly so. The documentation provided identifies what is wrong with the legislation in the basis and process of accreditation of state and territory schemes, the lack of indigenous control in decision making on significance and threat, problems in definition of areas and objects to be protected and inadequate minimum standards for accreditation. But it also quite objectively sets out what is good with the bill. So we are in a fortunate position in doing what the parliament ought to do, that is, being able to say to the government: `Your legislation is a bit like the curate's egg, good in parts. Let's slice the bad parts off the top and only leave those parts which are worthy of the support of both houses of this parliament and let's improve the dish by adopting those recommendations which most of the community would feel to be appropriate.' They are not extreme. They are rational. They do not go overboard in terms of providing difficult or complex red-tape solutions. They streamline and simplify the processes and they ought to be able to be accommodated by the government were it to apply itself to this dialogue with the opposition in goodwill.There are issues of fundamental principle that exist between the government and the opposition on some elements of the debate with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests. The reprehensible conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) with respect to native title and the way in which he has fraudulently characterised the existing legal position after the decision of the High Court and then sought to inflame passions in the community regarding that is a black mark on his party. But in this legislation I make no such claim. In this legislation I believe the government has sought to find what it believes to be a responsible course through the issues and to put before the parliament a bill which can command the support of both sides of the House. Unfortunately, we think it has got it wrong at least with those aspects which we have identified. Our view that it has got it wrong with respect to those elements is reinforced by the very significant work of the Evatt report and then the thorough review, I think very temperate in its language, very thoughtful in its analysis, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.So this is an area where parliament ought to be able to do its work as the people would wish. There is a lot of cynicism in the community about our parliamentary processes and a lot of concern that the only business we can do is to lock heads and to take low, cheap political points. Where we do our best work is usually where we actually say that there is an area of common ground and we can work to get an improved solution. I think that this is just such an area where we say that the principle is one which is to be welcomed. A number of the elements of the legislation do improve the existing structure of the protections that we would insist upon, but unfortunately other elements undermine those intentions and weaken the legislative framework and the protections.I do not wish to colour the way in which this debate has thus far been conducted by drawing attention to other aspects of the government's position with regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues where a far less sensible approach has been adopted, where the politics of division and conflict have been espoused and where political advantage has been sought cheaply and without merit. This is an area where, to the extent it is possible, the debate ought to be conducted in a bipartisan way. Regrettably, because of the way in which this government has sought political advantage from some of the remarks of its leader, that has been less possible in the course of this parliament than over the other nine years I have been a member of this place. I think that is sufficient to put my views on the record on this matter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I deliberately did not interrupt the member for Denison at the time as a courtesy, but you did accuse the Prime Minister of fraud and I would be grateful if you would withdraw that.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I did not intend to accuse—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You said `fraudulent action'; please withdraw.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I withdraw.11:11:004833McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—If you travel to Europe or to London, for example, when you walk down the street and see a building dating back to the 13th century you are seeing the heritage of that country. Throughout European nations they have that tradition, culture and heritage to hold out to the rest of the world with pride. If we look at Australia from the point of view of being an Australia of only white settlement, we have a very limited heritage indeed. In fact, we do not have that; we have a considerable depth and wealth of heritage going back thousands and thousands of years—the heritage of indigenous Australians. Australians of all backgrounds are prepared to take pride in that. If one thinks of the tourist dollars—just in dollar terms—that we make as a result of indigenous culture, artefacts, traditional sites and historical sites, we would make not millions but billions of dollars over time as a result of the attraction not only of Australians to these places but also of the rest of the world who want to come and feel a part of it.If you look at the movie Crocodile Dundee, there is little doubt that it would not have had its international success if it had not had that interaction with indigenous Australians. Australians are prepared to make a quid out of indigenous tradition but we really have to think carefully as to whether we are doing the right thing and going sufficiently far to protect it, not just protecting what we identify as indigenous heritage but receiving input. If someone came into my house, for instance, on a clean-up day and said, `That is not significant to you. That can go out,' even though I did think it was significant and did not want to put it out for the clean-up campaign I would say, `Go and take a jump. These are things of significance to me, knowing my own background and knowing my culture.' This bill is not dissimilar from that analysis if you do not include indigenous Australians in the decision making process. That is where we in the opposition think that this bill falls down.Although we support the aim of the bill, which is to protect indigenous areas and objects, we do not think the methodology is right. In arguing to that effect, we rely heavily on the Evatt review conducted in 1995 and 1996, and we rely heavily on the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund in both their 11th and 12th reports. While there were dissenting reports, on the whole the majority reports were balanced and sensible. Indeed, we believe it presents a substantial model that the government should be following rather than one imposed by the minister.The previous speaker, the member for Denison (Mr Kerr), spoke of the cynicism and, indeed, contempt that some Australians have for politicians and for the political process. A way of breaking that down is through this concept of participatory democracy. The Evatt review, which involved taking evidence from all around Australia, including written submissions, and the joint standing committee process which involves a similar process of taking both oral and written evidence, are means of achieving participatory democracy—that is, where the people affected by government decisions have an input in the outcome. So it is unwise, I would submit, to ignore the recommendations taken by the committee and the Evatt review after having that input from the broader community and by those who are affected and who are going to be affected if this bill is passed.In looking at the background of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , the Commonwealth has power in this area because of section 51 (xxvi) of the constitution relating to the race power and also by virtue of the external affairs power because there are a number of very significant international treaties which impose obligations on the Australian government in this area. There is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. There is the 1996 UNESCO Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation, which includes very important principles worth reading and taking note of. It says:Each culture has a dignity and a value which must be respected and preserved; Every people has the right and the duty to develop its culture . . . and I emphasise the words `the duty to develop its culture'. And, thirdly:In their rich variety and diversity and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another, all cultures form part of the economic heritage belonging to all man kind.Those comments are sensible and sound. Certainly we are keen to portray to the rest of the world that Aboriginal heritage is part of our modern Australian culture—indeed, we want people to come here and see it. Fundamentally, we want to exploit that for economic reasons, but we have to go further than that. We have an obligation to the international community and ourselves to not only protect but also nurture and develop our culture, and that includes indigenous culture. The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is also directly relevant to this issue.I stress that it is unfortunate that the Evatt review recommendations in particular were not followed in this area, in view of the broad based acceptance that those recommendations received from the general community. The joint standing committee, to which I have referred, prima facie saw the merit of those recommendations. I understand that they sought a reference to the committee from the minister on the urgent need for amendments `consistent with the report of the review of the act by Justice Elizabeth Evatt'. They started off on the premise that the Evatt review recommendations were soundly based and they wanted a reference to develop legislation to implement those balanced and sensible recommendations. It is unfortunate that those recommendations were departed from.The three primary areas where they were departed from were with respect to the national interest test imposed in the bill, the decision not to include any provision which ensures the involvement of indigenous Australians in the decision making process and the treatment of plans for state and territory accreditation.I will deal first with the national interest test. Effectively this bill tries to delegate the regime for developing the protection of indigenous heritage to the states and territories. To do that, the bill proposes a form of accreditation of those states and territories and then for the states and territories to determine the significance of a cultural site or a site of significant heritage to the indigenous community.Once the determination has been made by an accredited state in order to obtain federal intervention, the applicant bears the onus of proving to the minister that protection of the custom or the site or object would be in the national interest. That is an onus placed on the applicant or applicants, who are likely to be indigenous Australians. It goes without saying that something of great local or regional significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australians may not be in the national interest. It may be of great significance to them but would not meet the national interest test. It is noteworthy that there is no corresponding provision in the bill providing that it is in the national interest to protect indigenous heritage. That would be a way of ensuring that any protection of indigenous heritage was in the national interest. But that is not there, so the phrase `in the national interest' has to be construed and interpreted, and the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australians making applications have to satisfy that onus. We say that is unacceptable and unnecessarily harsh and burdensome.In terms of the accreditation procedure for states and territories, we are concerned that the Commonwealth, despite its constitutional power and its clear treaty obligations to the rest of the world, has effectively flicked this heritage regime to the states. The accreditation procedure of the states is set out in section 26. The accreditation requirements are expressed in very general language, and they do not contain the basic standards recommended by either the Evatt review or the recommendations in the 11th and 12th reports of the joint standing committee.Those standards, for instance, fail to specify the indigenous control over the assessments, the access rights and the review rights. They fail to specify provision for emergency and interim protection. They fail to specify provision for early consideration of heritage issues in the planning process. They fail to specify the required resources which the states must put into this system to ensure effective access to the states' and territories' remedies. Again, even on this accreditation process, the bill, we say, is far less comprehensive than it needs to be.Perhaps a major issue of concern is the fact that the bill does not include indigenous Australians in the decision making process. Yes, the decision maker has to have regard to the evidence presented by indigenous Australians, but the decision maker is someone quite separate from the Aboriginal community that is going to be affected. Again—going back to that analogy of someone coming into my home and telling me what is or what is not significant to me—it is offensive. I think that Aboriginal Australians are entitled to be offended by someone other than themselves telling them what is or is not worthy of protection.The Evatt review, for instance, recommended indigenous members participate in an advisory council at least to talk about broader issues of participation by indigenous Australians in this process. The Evatt review also spoke of establishing an independent agency to function as the implementing body or the national coordinating body of this heritage review procedure. Again, that would have been worth while and, I would have thought, of great assistance to the decision maker. Fundamentally, there has been a clear failure to adequately involve indigenous Australians in the decision making process. This is despite, again, the fact that the 12th report of the joint standing committee was `strongly supportive' of the principle of meaningful indigenous involvement in the relevant decision making process.The previous speaker spoke of the issues relating to the Native Title Amendment Bill and said that this bill could be seen separately from the Native Title Amendment Bill. With respect to the previous speaker, who is on my side of the House, I do not entirely agree with that. During the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill, we in the opposition raised issues of cultural heritage for indigenous Australians and the government repeatedly said, `Look, those matters have got to be dealt with in this separate heritage bill.' So there is an overlap between the issues that are covered.Fundamentally, we object to the approach taken in this bill in the context of the diminished rights of Aboriginal Australians under the native title legislation. In particular, this bill adopts a very authoritarian approach. Those with power exercise control without the consent of the people affected. There is no attempt to obtain the informed consent of those involved because they are not participating in the decision making process, and that, as I have said, is a fundamental breach—indeed, a breach, one would think, of the principles of procedural fairness.The other concern that was raised by the shadow minister was the aspect of this traditional test rather than the much broader criteria needed to have regard to the historical significance and the development of Aboriginal culture over time. For instance, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has said in respect to the interaction between this bill and the Native Title Act:The proposed amendments to the Native Title Act significantly detract from the already very limited ability of Aboriginal people to protect their cultural heritage. By weakening heritage protection processes even further, this bill leaves the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in extreme jeopardy.That is a valid comment and one which causes real concern, and, I would think, real concern to the international community, because this bill goes nowhere near far enough to comply with Australia's international obligations, which most sophisticated countries treat with great sincerity and respect.Other issues of concern in the bill include the fact that the minister has an unfettered discretion in appointing the director of the indigenous heritage program. Usually these sorts of appointments are made by the Governor-General rather than the minister and that, of course, gives the commissioner at least a perception of independence from government. There are a number of examples where that has occurred—where the Governor-General as opposed to the minister makes the appointment: the Law Reform Commission, the Australian War Memorial, under the War Graves Act, the Australian National Maritime Museum Act, the National Gallery Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act all provide examples of that procedure.But that procedure, whereby the minister makes the appointment rather than the Governor-General, is of particular concern, particularly where the legislation does not prescribe the qualifications needed by the commissioner. That contrasts, for instance, with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, who must be a person who has significant experience in community life of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons. Indeed, it is noted that the joint standing committee rejected Senator Herron's argument that such a qualification was unnecessary in the legislation and specifically adopted Mr Dodson's argument to model the criteria on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. So, again, it is regrettable that the minister has departed from that recommendation of the joint standing committee.Also of concern is the fact that the minister or the decision maker is not required to provide reasons for their decision. We say that is equally as bad as any accusations that were made on the Hindmarsh Island bridge issue where the minister's decision was set aside because of inadequate reasons. In this case, the decision maker is not required to give any reasons—and that, of course, makes effective review almost impossible.So at the end of the day the government, while making a gesture towards recognising the significance of indigenous Australians' heritage, is not going far enough. It had excellent models provided in the Evatt review and, indeed, in sensible reports from the joint standing committee. It is regrettable that the government did not follow those recommendations. (Time expired)11:31:004837Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—I am proud to stand with my colleagues on this side of the parliament to indicate our concern about the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, which is designed to provide amendments to the prime legislation which was introduced during the term of the previous Labor government.The shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), when he was leading for the government in the debate on this legislation, said that the government should set this bill aside. I support that proposition. It is a position which the opposition very, very strongly holds to. We are most concerned about the inadequacy of this legislation which is designed, as I say, to amend legislation which was initially introduced by a Labor government. That legislation introduced by a Labor government was new legislation; it was breaking new ground. It certainly had inadequacies which needed to be attended to—but not in the way this government has proposed.In fact, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks, went further and said that this bill is another instrument of control over indigenous Australians. There are a number of images which an expression of that kind brings to our minds. I have here with me two photographs. The first photo graph has been taken in the last century. It is of at least four older Aboriginal men. Each of those Aboriginal men has an iron or a steel ring around his neck. The steel rings are connected one to the other with steel chains.The other photograph is one which appears on the front page of a publication entitled On the occasion of National Sorry Day 26 May 1998. It is a collection of personal letters and extracts from parliamentary debates, presented to the indigenous peoples of Australia and compiled by my colleague Senator Margaret Reynolds. That photograph shows about 30 young Aboriginal children, whose ages I guess range from about eight to perhaps 12. Those young Aboriginal children are physically yoked to a plough which is under the control of a white farmer. This photograph also presumably has been taken from the last century.When we say this bill is another instrument of control over indigenous Australians, I just refer to the nature of control reflected in those two photographs. I seek leave to have those photographs incorporated in Hansard.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I thank the member for Charlton for his courtesy in approaching me on this matter, and I share the deep feeling he has on this subject. I am happy to give leave for the photographs to be tabled. I am not prepared to give leave for incorporation in Hansard , not because the photographs are not moving or meaningful but because Hansard is a record of the spoken word in this parliament. I do not think it is appropriate to open it up to illustrations and other devices.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I am not going to waste my time in argument about this, but I will draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary at the table House of Representatives Practice , pages 467 and 468. It states:Apart from offending against the principle that Hansard is a report of the spoken word, certain items are also excluded on technical grounds. Thus, for example, photographs, drawings, maps, tabulated material of excessive length and documents of a quality not acceptable for printing or which would present technical problems and unduly delay the production of the daily Hansard cannot be incorporated.It is quite clear then, Mr Deputy Speaker, that photographs which are capable of reproduction can be incorporated, and I have had tabulated material incorporated in Hansard on one previous occasion. If leave will not be granted, I certainly will table these photographs and I will pursue the matter in other ways. But I am appealing to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow me leave, despite the position which has been adopted by the parliamentary secretary, to have those photographs incorporated in Hansard if they are of a quality capable of being reproduced in accordance with the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice .EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—On a point of order: leave to incorporate the photographs is not granted by me because, as I have said, it offends against the principle that Hansard is a record of the spoken word.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—The Deputy Speaker's hands to some extent are tied by the fact that leave has been refused. I suggest to the honourable member for Charlton that he table the photographs so that they can be examined. I have not had the opportunity to look at the photographs, and I think the member should table them. I understand that there have been other matters incorporated in Hansard from time to time. The technical quality of what you are expecting to have tabled I have not had the opportunity to look at. There may well be some very good reason, in addition to the fact that you have not been provided with leave, not to have them incorporated.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I table the photographs. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that you came to the chair after I started to speak. There was no opportunity for me to make you aware of them. The person who preceded you in the chair is aware of them. I simply make this point in tabling these photographs: there is one reason and one reason only why any member speaking for the government representing the interests of the government or the intentions and purposes of the government would seek not to have them included, and you and I are both aware of that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just described the photographs. For the benefit of the people in the gallery, I draw their attention to those two photographs. I draw the attention of the listening public to the nature of those photographs.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My objection to them being tabled in Hansard is that we do not know the historical basis of them. When I was at school, there are records of us being yoked to a plough. We thought it was fun. You do not know the circumstance of that picture. I rise to my feet to oppose the pictures being tabled.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—I can oppose them being tabled.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked the honourable member for Charlton to table the photographs, which he has done. Leave has been refused for the incorporation of them in Hansard .CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am opposing these photographs being tabled. I think this should stop them being tabled. If not, we should have a vote on it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understood that the member for Warringah had granted leave for the tabling.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—But I have not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understand that the honourable member has that privilege to refuse leave. That would then prevent the honourable member for Charlton from having those photographs tabled.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Good.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I accept that. I am rather disturbed that my friend the member for Kalgoorlie would involve himself in an act of censorship of that kind when he knows that having had them tabled the question of their authenticity could well be pursued on other occasions and in other ways. I just express my disappointment. I have described the photographs. I leave the question of the authenticity of those photographs to others, but what they do, quite clearly, is to present in a very symbolic way some of those things about which white Australians, not necessarily of our generation, have cause to feel guilt. Why should we compound it now with this amending legislation? Why should we compound the offences of the past?The member for Banks, when he was leading for the opposition in connection with this legislation, referred to indigenous people being excluded from the decision making in developing the criteria upon which this legislation would rest. He said, `They will have no role in evaluating evidence.' He said, `They will be told, not asked.' What is new? They will be told and not asked. That is a reflection of the continuing paternalism that European Australia, in particular, has visited on indigenous Australians for 200 years. They will be told, not asked. What is new?Let me say to the member for Banks and shadow minister for indigenous affairs, Daryl Melham, that, while I will not be in this parliament after the next election, I look forward to the imminent occasion after the election when he will be able to make a similar speech as he presents the second reading speech to introduce a new bill to amend the act. This bill represents a retreat by the government from its legal, constitutional and moral responsibilities—legal responsibilities under our acceptance of covenants and declarations of the United Nations; constitutional responsibilities under the provisions of the 1967 referendum, when we amended the constitution to make it explicit that Aboriginals would not be excluded from the opportunity for the Commonwealth government to legislate for them.I know there has been a lot of conjecture recently which has reached the courts of Australia about just what that 1967 amendment was intended to do, whether it should have the effect of allowing a government to legislate to the detriment of Aborigines. Let me make this clear: I campaigned prior to that referendum in 1967 for the amendments. I joined with 94 per cent of the Australian people who voted yes, and those 94 per cent of the Australian people on that occasion voted to give the Commonwealth government legislative power to legislate on behalf of Aborigines, not against them, not to prejudice them. During the course of that constitutional debate it was never suggested that, as a result, the Commonwealth government would be given the power to legislate to the detriment of Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders. Yet there are some people who now claim that it has that effect, for reasons known to themselves and to others.There is no question that the provisions of this legislation amount to this Commonwealth government passing the buck and abrogating its responsibilities. One of the essential provisions of this amending legislation is that, if states establish for themselves appropriate procedures or criteria for giving consideration to the protection of heritage sites or assets which are important to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, then the Commonwealth will not intervene unless it is in the national interest.Justice Evatt, in her commentary on that particular proposal, said, `This is incompatible with maintaining the Commonwealth procedure as a last resort mechanism,' and then went on to say:The protection of Aboriginal heritage is an important national interest in itself , and . . . the protection procedure under the Act should be available as a mechanism of last resort in all cases . . . [The national interest provisions] place a new and significant barrier in the way of heritage protection.That is a core element of this whole question; that is fundamental. It is a question of whether this Commonwealth government and future Commonwealth governments accept the responsibilities which that 1967 amendment to the constitution gave to them and whether a Commonwealth government given that power by 94 per cent of the Australian people in 1967 would use it if necessary to override any state or territory based decision which acts to the detriment of the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage.We could imagine, surely, a situation in which some matter of heritage of fundamental, deep, spiritual, critical concern to a relatively small group of Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders somewhere in Australia is not recognised or protected by state or territory governments. But who could claim that that relatively small issue was in the national interest? Probably no-one would, and as a result of that this government would wash its hands, pass the buck to the states or the territories and abrogate its responsibilities.What did the head of ATSIC who was appointed by this government after Dr Lois O'Donoghue's term came to an end have to say about this bill? He said:[The] Bill significantly erodes this sole remaining option under the Howard Government's own agenda by withdrawing Commonwealth involvement in indigenous heritage, except in cases involving the "national interest."In despair, Mr Djerrkura makes that statement; he reflects and represents the despair of indigenous people right across Australia.I want to make another point in connection with this question and the implications of it. The opposition has attempted, on numerous occasions, to reach common ground with this government. We have been spurned on every occasion. In connection with the national reconciliation process, in connection with an apology and an expression of sorrow for the past treatment of indigenous Australians and in connection with land rights, including such fundamental rights as the right to negotiate the Aboriginal people were spurned, as the opposition was spurned. People of goodwill, but people also of emotion, have been ridiculed. We had the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, referring to `people who are wimps, weeping all over the place'.I am going to put on record now the message which I penned in connection with National Sorry Day, which I recognised, and with National Reconciliation Week, which with this lapel ribbon I still recognise. I made the following statement headed `A Personal Message to Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People'. I said:I am aware of the appalling experiences and circumstances which so many of you and your forebears suffered as a result of the forced and deceitful removal of Australia's indigenous children from their mothers, families and communities. Although no confirmation was required, enough detail was provided in the outstanding report `Bringing them home' from the Sir Ronald Wilson inquiry to dispel any doubts of even the most sceptical.It matters not what may have motivated those actions of white Australia. Those actions resulted in personal trauma and damage of quite horrendous proportions for our indigenous people.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have just perused the detail of the bill—5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I have about half a minute left, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I recognise your commitment to this particular area, but if you read the title of the bill it is fairly specific.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I am very much aware of the title of the bill and I have incorporated my comments within it. I went on to say:I am deeply sorry that you and your people were subjected to such treatment. I pledge myself to support any measures which may help to redress the wrongs of the past and of the present.May you all be able to accept the genuine remorse of those, like me, who offer their apologies for what has been done, as another step towards the honourable and essential goal of reconciliation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Charlton should not persist with that because it does not fit in with the title of the bill and is outside it.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I have incorporated my remarks, as I have said, within the province of that bill. The bill is concerned with Aboriginal heritage, Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal dignity, and that is what I have attempted to address.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member's time for this contribution has expired.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—I am aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for your consideration. (Time expired)SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was reluctant to interrupt the member, but this debate appears to me to have moved way beyond any reasonable outline of Aboriginal culture and the factors at play within the legislation before the House. I encourage you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see that contributors to the debate stay within the bounds of the bill before the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am endeavouring to do so.11:52:004841Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—It is with some regret that I rise to oppose the legislation before us, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , because I think it is thoughtless legislation and I think it is ill-conceived. But, most seriously, it seems to me that the legislation does not really go to the question of indigenous culture but to Australian culture. I make the comparison with, for example, the Lascaux Caves in France which have been closed to tourists in order to preserve them. France sees them as being part of the human heritage of Europe—French in origin but relevant to European civilisation. In my view, many of those paintings—given what I have seen in the pictures of them—do not compare with many of the older rock art paintings in the Northern Territory that date back more than 30,000 years. They are not only of significance to Aboriginal culture but of significance to the broader culture of Australia which will emerge.It is interesting that the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has the power, if an important object of Australian art is purchased and is being taken overseas, to intervene to prevent that. There is no suggestion in this narrow framework that that power should be shared with a state minister for the arts. I find it fascinating that the states were creations long before we had a Commonwealth. In all those years, when has there been a significant and legitimate demand on behalf of the states that this is a field that they should occupy? Where is the record of achievement of the states in the preservation of Aboriginal culture and heritage? It is only in the last 10 or 15 years that there have been developments. One of the problems that confronts the states is of course the shortage of funds. No state minister for Aboriginal affairs has the sort of financial backing which would enable him to do the things which the people of Australia said very clearly in a referendum were a prerogative of the Commonwealth.If the states feel so deeply about this, where is the evidence brought forward by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), who is still feeling his way, in a somewhat clumsy way, through his role? The exception is South Australia where there has been significant state involvement in the preservation of Aboriginal land and the creation of a museum of world significance for the preservation of Aboriginal culture. Within that, of course, there are areas where what is kept there is secret and can be seen only with the relevant permission of the people to whom those objects are of great significance. It is not an accident that it was a state Labor government which preceded the Commonwealth in this area. There were no hassles between the government of South Australia and the government of the Commonwealth, as it then was, about land rights.Let us look at the situation in Australia today. I never thought I would live to see a day when, in any part of Australia, we would have a race based election. I never thought I would see it. I do not believe—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What's it got to do with the bill?CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—I will tell you what it has got to do with the bill. We will have a race based election because the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the government do not understand the significance of what is occurring.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—There is no race based election; that's nonsense.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—You wouldn't know. The only experience I really recall with you—I sometimes regret it because I admire some of your speeches—is the simple occasion when we were in the middle of the desert and your statements about land rights meant that I had to intervene to stop you being speared. But that is an old story.Mr Campbell interjecting—CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—No, you have forgotten it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports should continue with his remarks on the bill.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—You are quite right. If there is a feeling, a deeply felt need, within the states that they have to participate in the preservation, development and encouragement of the culture and heritage of Aboriginal people, where outside South Australia is the track record? There has been some achievement in the Northern Territory in the preservation of rock art. That owes a great deal to the museum and, in particular, the work of Mr George Chalaupka, who has spent a lifetime, with the confidence of Aboriginal people, going out and finding areas of rock art. The work that he has done has been honoured by the award to him of an Order of Australia. But, importantly, apart from those sorts of achievements, there is very little evidence in any of the state legislatures—with the exception of South Australia—of a committed record of seeing indigenous culture as part of the continuing heritage which is valuable to the development of Australian culture.In Victoria, there are still areas which are relevant and known to Aboriginal people, but much of that culture has been destroyed. Let us look at the record in my own state. It took years for the Bolte government—despite the objections of members of the National Party—to hand back Lake Tyres. When a Labor government in Victoria handed back Framlingham, that decision was defeated in the Legislative Council and it required Commonwealth intervention to produce that result.If one looks at Queensland's history, the so-called areas which were there to protect Aboriginal people were run like concentration camps. The former member for Kennedy, who was an Aboriginal affairs minister in that state, did his best. He was continually on the phone seeking Commonwealth financial assistance for a range of projects and on many occasions we were able to help him. But, apart from his commitment, there was no commitment. There were many projects that he had and wanted, but in most instances the tab came to the Commonwealth.What is the motivation of this government? They have got a committee that does not approve of this. They have got a significant legal judgment from a significant Australian lawyer, Justice Evatt, that says that this is not a legally desirable thing—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Or moral.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—Or moral. I take the comment of my colleague. What is the motivation? Is it that the new Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs feels so overcome by his responsibilities that, despite the concerns of the community that he as a minister is supposed to represent, he says, `Well, we are going to give this to the states, and in some areas we might help out occasionally'? This is a responsibility that the people of Australia have given to the Commonwealth. I do not say that the Commonwealth should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The Commonwealth can be supportive of initiatives taken by the states, but where were those initiatives? As I say, South Australia stands out as a monument, but where are those initiatives? That is the problem.In my view, we have got a minister who has yielded and a government that has yielded to some of the sleazy demands that have come from various dominant white industries in the area who feel continuously offended when they want a development to take place when there are legitimate Aboriginal concerns which have to be dealt with by a Commonwealth minister. It is a lot easier to say, `We will give the responsibility over to the states and the state minister can deal with it.' We know how certain of the state ministers will deal with it. When you look at the history of land grants that came from the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory, after all the hearings, after all the process and when the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs acted in respect of those processes and signed off to grant areas of land which were of significance to Aboriginal people, on every occasion it was straight into the High Court. There was no worry about the expenditure of public moneys, and case after case was lost.The state governments are keen to have development, as we are keen to have development. But, if there is some miner which says, `We reckon there is a bit of alluvial gold or mineral deposit we can dig up, or a bit of oil,' and it is in an area of significance to Aboriginal people, an art area, does anybody honestly believe that the state minister is going to say, `There are a lot of problems about this. We will have to confer with Aboriginal people'? You look at the track record. There is nobody on the other side of the House who does not know what will happen in that circumstance, because the track record in so many instances is that every initiative taken by the Commonwealth in this area has been opposed by state legislatures which have had their own criteria of what they see as reasonable development.This minister has been here long enough to know that he must have the support and confidence of Aboriginal people. Whatever his capacities as a physician and surgeon, he knows very little about Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal tradition. On what basis does he say to Aboriginal people, `Some state minister will make a decision about the future of areas of land, the future of artworks, that are of significance to your people. I'm too busy. If it becomes too messy, I might get involved'? What is all that about? It is about a view of Aboriginal people and their rights to preserve their culture and their spiritual beliefs. It would be a pretty game minister who would try to tell the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne or Sydney which sacred objects were theirs and that the minister would take over responsibility for it. The same is true of the Jewish community and the Anglican community.There is a view latent within this government and within this Prime Minister which says, `They are only Aboriginals, their spiritual views are not quite like ours, so we will give this issue of the preservation of their culture and their spiritual beliefs over to a group of state ministers.' They know what will happen, and the Aboriginal people know what will happen. The fact is that this Prime Minister is prepared to put his name to it and stay silent on this, just as he has stayed silent in respect of the racist utterances of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) so that we now have a race based election in this country for the first time. I do not believe the Prime Minister is a racist, I do not believe many of my political colleagues on the other side have a racist bone in their body, but racism devel ops when good people and good members who are opposed to it do not take a positive stand against it. It is as simple is that. I believe it was important for the Prime Minister to come out much earlier, but that is another matter.What is also important is that, when you are dealing with the spiritual values and culture of any group of Australian citizens, you do not make decisions that have not involved them. As I have said, you would not do that to any of the significant religions within this community. What makes Aboriginal spiritual beliefs less worthy of the recognition of this government and less worthy of a sensitive approach by this government to deal with these issues? You are not only betraying the Aboriginal people of Australia but setting back the heritage of all Australian peoples.The one thing I have learnt about Aboriginal people is that, in terms of their beliefs, once they feel that they can trust you and they know you, there is a willingness to share and there is a willingness to incorporate that in the history, the tradition and the emerging culture of the Australian people. This legislation is going to set that back.I hope that the amendments which will undoubtedly be moved in the Senate will be listened to by the government because this legislation as it stands requires an explanation from the government before it gets to the Senate. If the states were always so hot to trot on these issues, why is the record of the great majority of the states so bad in this area? Until that question is answered, I believe the only proper course for this House is to support the views of the shadow minister and to pursue those in the Senate. Unfortunately, that will be another issue on which this House should speak with one voice but will again be divided in terms of the rights of our indigenous people. And that is yet another black mark against this government.12:09:004843Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—The speeches that I have listened to in this place on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 have to a large degree been inciting racism. Certainly the speeches of the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the member for Mel bourne Ports (Mr Holding), in my view, incite racism. There is no racist debate and there is no racist election. The election in Queensland will be decided on people's thorough disenchantment with the government but, believe me, there is no support for the other party and all people can do is vote one in and vote one out.I must say I am disappointed. The member for Charlton's speech is one of the silliest I have heard in this parliament for a long time. I come from an area where I represent a very large Aboriginal population and I have good support from that population because I do not lie to them and I try to address their real problems. The nub of this legislation goes back to that referendum in 1967. The member for Charlton and I were both strong supporters of that. We were among that 94 per cent. The people of Australia overwhelmingly voted for that referendum on the basis that we were giving equality to Aboriginal people—`Give them equality?' `Of course, why shouldn't they have equality?'In many areas they did have it. I was talking to Sunny Graham, a recognised and well-respected Aboriginal in Norseman, who told me he was head boy at Norseman High School. He used to come in from the mission, but he was head boy at Norseman High school in the early 1950s. When we voted in that referendum, we thought we were voting to give equality. Of course we were doing nothing of the sort; we were voting to give the government the power to make special rules for Aboriginal people. And by and large they have messed it up.They have had this nonsense—perpetrated by the shadow minister, echoed by the member for Charlton—that governments can legislate only for the benefit. What a nonsense! How can you possibly do it? `Benefit' is subjective. It would be a benefit, I would suggest to the minister, if we were to ban drinking. What do you think would happen if we tried that? It would clearly be unconstitutional. It is a nonsense, and you know it is a nonsense. That is the nub of this problem. That referendum was grotesquely misrepresented. That is what happens, of course, when governments write the questions because it is often how the question is written that you get the answer that you are looking for.I am sorry the member for Melbourne Ports has gone because he is undoubtedly in this House the prince of hyperbole—the emotional context and the slow speech. It is a trick I have often admired in this House: when you have actually got nothing to say you talk very slowly with great emphasis. It means you can say nothing over a longer period.The truth is this: I was a member of an Aboriginal affairs committee. We went around Australia three times looking at Aboriginal education. We went around Australia talking everywhere—we went to every corner of this country—and the message we got from Aboriginal people was this: `Teach us English and teach us numeracy—that is what we need. Don't worry about culture—we'll do that. If we don't speak our language, it will die; if we don't practise our culture, it will die—and that is our decision.'That was the view of Aboriginal people and it was not until we got to that dreadful Monash in Victoria that we got these white academics telling us we had to have Aboriginal languages in the schools. When we wrote that report—it is an interesting report because by and large it is a good report, but you can tell when I am absent from the committee because back in slips the demand for Aboriginal language—what happened? Despite the bulk of the committee opposing it, every education system in Australia has introduced Aboriginal culture, so much so that Billy King—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration—told me that when their community at Mount Barnett was looking to get a school they agonised over what sort of school they would have. They had made up their minds that they did not want an Aboriginal independent school because they felt it did not give enough education. They were tossing up between a Catholic and a state system. They opted for the state system because they got an unqualified guarantee from the state that there would be no Aboriginal culture. That lasted as long as the first principal of that school. With the advent of the second principal, in came Aboriginal culture—basically an eastern states ersatz culture. It had no relevance at all to that community, and he said they spent most of their time trying to undo the nonsense put into the heads of the children by the school. That is the simple truth of the matter.There is a wide divergence in Aboriginal culture. Indeed, when we were at Monash someone came before us and said they wanted Aboriginal language taught in all schools. Then he conceded that they had all died out in Victoria and they had to bring one from New South Wales. When I questioned him, he said, `You have to understand the universality of Aboriginality.' I just wonder that it has not been made into a pop song. I can see it now: `The universality of Aboriginality'. What a wonderful ring to it! But what it says is a nonsense! I said to him, `Do you mean they're all the same?' He said, `Basically, yes.' What an insult!I told him the story of an experience of mine. I had a call from people out in the Western Desert—that area between Kalgoorlie and Alice Springs—who wanted to come and see me about a cultural invasion. I thought to myself, `What have we done now?' When they turned up at my office two weeks later I said, `What's the problem?' They said, `They are taking the culture away.' I asked, `Who are taking the culture away?' They answered, `The Pitjantjatjara: they are coming across the border and taking the culture away.'I envisioned them shoving the culture in the back of the Toyota, but it was really about money. The government had decided that it was going to fund land councils on a per capita basis and the Aboriginals in the Central Desert did not want the Pitjantjatjara collecting money in their name. They wanted to run their own show, although those people, who call themselves `Wongi' speak a Pitjantjatjara language. It is a derivation which only in a very small changes from Pitjantjatjara in intonation.But they wanted to run their own affairs. When we understood that, we agreed to it and we supported them. They set up the Ngaanyatjarra Land Council, which is today the only land council in Australia that really works because it is the only one that delivers services and not politics. It represents their people. It is one of the only land councils I know where the people actually make the direction. It certainly does not happen in the great bulk of other land councils. Who elects the Kimberley Land Council? They elect themselves. Yet the Labor Party, even this government, the ABC and the main newspapers hang on every word of Peter Yu. In my electorate the Aboriginals call him `Peter Me'. We say, `These poor Aboriginals don't understand English, it is a second language.' They understand the nuances of the language enough to call Mr Yu `Mr Me'. In their opinion he is looking after himself.As a direct result of the nonsense we are being subjected to, we had the advent of Sorry Day. I do not intend to dwell a lot on it, only to say this: no-one could put any store in the report by Sir Ronald Wilson. He saw only people directed to him by the Aboriginal industry—the Aboriginal Legal Service; the grievance industry. He did not see people who wanted to put a counterview, nor did he actually query or seek to find out whether he was being told the truth. When he said, `How could you doubt these people when they were crying while they told the story?' if he could see how easy it is to cry in this House—when you see Beazley blubbering and you see—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie is straying somewhat from the bill. I ask him to direct his attention to the terms of the bill.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—I intend to, but I do say, as I said to the Speaker the other day, that 26 May should henceforth be known as `Sir Ronald and Saint Onan's Day'. I am sure that lots of members on both sides of this House would endorse that.This bill does have a shortcoming. It does take power away from the minister. The great failing of the ATSIC bill is that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) is without power. Tickner used to say this. I used to tell Aboriginals in my constituency that the minister says that he has no power. I do not think that they believed me. When he went to Fitzroy Crossing one day he actually said it to the assembled crowd. And Dickie Cox said, very perceptively, `Why do you take the money then?' When the present minister went there he said exactly the same thing to exactly the same forum: he has no power. Yet the minister is seeking to give away more power. It is just a nonsense thing.Quite clearly the member for Melbourne Ports is wrong. On the vast areas of the country in Western Australia you cannot get a mining permit to prospect if it is opposed by Aboriginal people. The minister simply will not grant it. We have all these things heaped on us. What would happen if we were constructing a road and we dug up some bones deemed to be the bones of some perished pioneer? The road would go right through. Why do bones necessarily signify a sacred site? Of course it does not signify anything sacred. The Bible says, `Amidst life we are amongst death.' Life itself is a terminal disease—we all die. That does not make anything sacred. Even in our own legislation it says that after a descendant buried in a cemetery has been dead for 100 years you can disturb the cemetery. There is nothing particularly sacred about this.I am reminded of a story told to me by an Aboriginal fellow who said he had been saved by the rabbit, which was introduced by the white people. I said, `What do you mean?' He said, `About 1942 we were moving and one of the leaders was carrying the sacred objects.' In Aboriginal culture the sacredness resides in objects, not so much in places. `He tripped and spilt these on the ground and the people who were not entitled to see them—the women and kids—were all killed.' But he had hung behind looking for rabbits and did not see them. So he was spared.We are told about sacred sites. I will give you an example of sacred sites. I happened to be out in the Kimberley when an oil company was putting in traverses for exploration. The traverse happened to come on a great boulder in a river. Everyone said, `Oh, that's nice.' The community adviser said to the Aboriginals, `Is this important?' They said, `Oh, yes, it is a very important site.' So he immediately goes along to the oil company and says, `You have to change all your traverses. You cannot proceed any further; this is an important site.' So I wandered over to this Aboriginal and said, `So it is important, is it?' He said, `Yes, it is a very good site.' I asked why it was good. He said, `It is a nice slippery rock to slide off into the water. The kids used to play here.' The traverse was not going to affect it in any way. So I was able to get the Aboriginals, who had a lot of commonsense, to agree that it had no effect at all on the exploration. The white adviser would have been quite happy to stop it at enormous cost to the company.The Hindmarsh Island Bridge was always a nonsense. Aboriginal elders in my own community said to me, `We are not stupid, we would not give women that sort of power.' That was the Aboriginal culture. And it came to be quite true.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Ah!CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—It is all right that the shadow minister gasps. The truth is that in Aboriginal culture women had no status and no power. We have perverted that and we now say they are equal, only different. That is a nonsense. They had no power. Yet these same people will tell you that all cultures are of equal value.I make a habit of talking to Aboriginals in my constituency. Billy King at Mount Barnett said to me about reconciliation, `That finished in 1942.' I said, `What do you mean, Billy?' He said, `In 1942, we now know that if the Japanese had got here they'd have killed us all.' And he said, `I said to the people, "How many of you people fought the Japanese?" None of them. The white boys went overseas and got killed fighting the Japanese to protect the whole of Australia. In doing so, they protected us and they paid back that debt.'4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They were helped by indigenous people, and you know it. Indigenous people helped. Don't rewrite history.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—Very, very few, for the shadow minister's benefit. Dickie Cox at Noonkanbah said to me, `This native title is white fella's humbug for white lawyers. It will do nothing for us'—and it is doing nothing for them—`except turn Aboriginal against Aboriginal.' That is the fruit of the actions of the Labor Party and the shadow minister at the table, and they know it. Even Frank Brennan is abandoning you. Even he is commenting on your attitude in these matters. I think Frank Brennan has a lot to answer for, but at least he has seen the light and he is right in this regard.We hear in this House about Henry Reynolds, the architect of the black armband history of Australia. Who can lay any store by anything Henry Reynolds said, let alone his wife? What does Justice Evatt—let's get some realism into this—know about the real situation? I have to deal with this on an ongoing basis and I can tell you this now: there is not one sacred site in this nation that is not negotiable for cash.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Rubbish!CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—The shadow minister knows it is not rubbish; he knows it is true. But then he can speak about Aboriginals from a point where he does not have to deal with them. We talk about the great attachment to land. I can tell the shadow minister that if he goes to Derby on an off pay week they will sell their land for a corned beef sandwich. There are some Aboriginals for whom land is significant, as there are people in the major community. As Dickie Cox said at Noonkanbah, `This isn't our land traditionally, but by hell we'll fight for it. We want a lease off the government. We don't want to lease off other Aboriginals. We want a lease like other people get; we want a pastoral lease.'What I believe in is equality for Aboriginal people. There are only two sorts of equality in the world: political equality and economic equality—political freedom and economic freedom. In this country we gave the Aboriginal people total political freedom but no economic basis. The truth is that economic freedom can buy political freedom but political freedom can never buy economic freedom. I believe in doing things that are going to bring Aboriginal people forward. I want to take them forward into the next century. I want for their kids what I want for my kids. I do not want to treat them, as the opposition does, as some museum piece and lock them up in a museum. That will be exactly the consequence of this.The opposition do not listen to Aboriginal people; they listen to the Aboriginal industry. They put great store by Peter Yu. They put great store by these other frauds who do not represent Aboriginal people. Just take a straw poll amongst Aboriginal people and see how much support there is for ATSIC. They know it is riven with family feuding and special privileges for family members. They know it is extraordinarily wasteful. They know they are not getting on the ground the vast amount of money that we make available.In this bill we further weaken the status of the minister. I think that is a very silly thing. I would have been happy to oppose the bill. Unfortunately, I cannot oppose it now because the Labor Party is opposing it for quite the wrong reasons.There is absolutely no doubt about this: I am one of the very few people in this House whose Aboriginal vote is significant enough to unseat them, to cause them to lose their seat. I doubt whether—with the possible exception of the Northern Territory—there is anyone else of whom that can be said.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Leichhardt, maybe.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—Possibly. The shadow minister does make a point, for there are more Aboriginals in the western suburbs of Sydney than there are in the whole of Western Australia, and there are as many in Perth as there are in my electorate.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—No, Leichhardt in Queensland.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—I thought you meant Leichhardt in Sydney. No, I do not think that would be the case in Leichhardt. It does not have the proportion of either Western Australia or the Northern Territory. Anyhow, that is a moot point. The fact is that they have the votes to do it if they want to. I get their support because I do not go along with this nonsense. I listen to their real problems and try to address them.The problems are these: hygiene, health, housing, education, training and employment. If you miss one of those out, the wheels fall off the whole lot. We never have had a concerted effort for this. There is no unity. One department gives; one department takes. It is impossible to get any action. You try, as I do constantly, to get ATSIC to move on things. It is basically impossible. Try to get the states to move and, as the member for Melbourne Ports said, they always plead no money. We do need a concerted effort and I believe these powers are better exercised by the states because the states are in fact closer to the problems. The role of ATSIC ought to be as an overseeing body just to make sure that the states are doing it, not to set up a massive bureaucracy of its own which clearly is not working.Concerning the effects on communities, it is true that there are people in this House who are inciting racial hatred and they are the members of the opposition, like the member for Melbourne Ports, who are going out and putting forward propositions which the public know are just not true. That is what incites animosity. Let us look at education. If we were to return Abstudy funding to the schools, we could enhance education. Without education, Aboriginals are going nowhere. Education is not everything, but without it there is no advancement. Education is going backwards as a direct result of the actions of the Labor government in taking that funding from the schools and giving it to individuals. (Time expired)12:29:004848Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—It is always interesting to follow the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the self-appointed white Australian expert on Aboriginal and indigenous affairs. As a member of the Joint Committee on Native Title, I am pleased to be able to speak briefly on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998. Like other members on this side of the House, I too have concerns about exactly what this bill is going to do for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection throughout this country. Why am I concerned about this bill? Principally because the Commonwealth is proposing to abrogate its responsibilities under current federal legislation and would have us believe that by passing the baton over to the states all will be well. This government's assertion that by instituting a regime whereby states are to be accredited and that this Commonwealth legislation will be one of last resort for those who wish to appeal decisions made by the states is fraught with danger. In my mind it jeopardises the rights of indigenous people in this country.After hearing considerable evidence from many distinguished Australians, some of whom have just been rubbished by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, and from various state governments and indigenous people and studying what each state has in train for heritage protection, I believe my concern is well founded. This bill limits the Commonwealth's role in accredited state regimes to matters involving national interest considerations. This means that the vast majority of, if not all, applications would not be eligible for protection even as a last resort. Indigenous heritage would be hostage to state political imperatives, with no avenue of appeal. One has only to imagine what might happen in Queensland in this regard if the election results were to be dictated and determined by the crazy One Nation element. This bill is an erosion of the existing framework of protection currently available under the combination of the current Commonwealth act and state and territory regimes.When it comes to the issue of accreditation, I raised my concerns at one of the hearings by asking the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) why the government was only talking of a minimum standard. It is interesting to note what was said at that hearing. I would like to read some small extracts from the Hansard transcripts of evidence taken in Canberra on 11 May this year. The Chairman said:One of the other concerns that has been raised is with regard to a minimum standard that we propose. There has been a suggestion that it is too vague. . . Senator HERRON —We have been negotiating with the states on minimum standards. Those minimum standards will have to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth legislation. We are not prescribing better standards or higher standards by any state, but minimum standards must be achieved by the states to meet accreditation by the Commonwealth. We are not saying that there should be uniform standards. We are saying that there should be minimum standards. Senator Herron says later on:We have a process for accreditation of minimum standards . . . Partial accreditation applies where a state or territory regime does not cover all categories covered in the minimum standards—for example, if it does not cover objects or the reporting of indigenous human remains—and accreditation decisions will be subject to disallowance by parliament in any case. The minister may withdraw accreditation if state or territory legislation changes and consequently fails to meet the minimum standards.We then have a quote from Mr John Van Beurden, from the Office of Indigenous Affairs:In terms of the level of minimum standards, we had to pitch them at a level where we felt they would provide for the essentials of what was required in heritage regimes but without tying it down to the extent that it would be difficult for states to adapt their laws to their own conditions and also to other laws they might have which might connect with those laws. That is why they are not quite in the detail that some people might like. Obviously, in administering the act, the minister will have discretion in terms of what he approves and what he does not, and parliament can disallow any decision to accredit if they feel it is inadequate.I then stated:There is this contentious thing about minimum standards. Why can't we raise the minimum to the highest rather than the minimum down to the average?Senator Herron said in response:We are putting a very high level of minimum standards that need to be accepted by the states and territories before they are accredited. If they do not reach those, they are not accredited and it stays with the Commonwealth.Mr QUICK —So is `minimum' perhaps the right word . . . Mr Van Beurden —I guess we did not think about that public perception aspect when we first drafted the act . . . CHAIRMAN —Maybe they should be called Commonwealth standard rather than—Senator Herron —I accept that.Mr QUICK —Perhaps we can allay a lot of those fears and say, `The Commonwealth legislation is the standard . . . Senator Herron —That is certainly the intention.My concerns are as well with the lack of indigenous control in the decision making process on the significance of cultural heritage. This bill in my mind does not provide for indigenous involvement in decision making on significance and threat. The proposed director of indigenous heritage must regard indigenous people as the primary source of information on these matters, but there is no requirement in this act that the director be indigenous and no structure for involving indigenous people in the decision making process. In my mind, this Office of Indigenous Heritage is a far cry from the recommendation by Justice Evatt that Aboriginal heritage committees be set up in this country.Another area of concern for me revolves around the definition of `areas and objects to be protected'. This bill adopts the definition used in the current act regarding areas and objects which are of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition. The recommendation by Justice Evatt to adopt a new approach based on an assessment of the degree and intensity of belief of Aboriginal people concerning the area or object involved seems, in my mind, far better. The focus on tradition has been maintained, despite its tendency to exclude areas and objects that are of significance for historical considerations. Experience under the current act indicates that it is necessary to further define `traditions' in the bill to ensure that it is an evolving thing that changes over time.There are some positive aspects of the bill which address problems experienced under the current act and make for better processes. These beneficial changes include the separation of decision making on significance and threat from decisions on protection, stronger focus on resolution through negotiation and mediation, which I think is a very important issue, stronger protection for culturally sensitive information, the provision for acceptance of findings flowing from acceptable processes under accredited state regimes, legislative clarification of substantive and procedural requirements in relation to reports prepared on applications, provision for the minister to delegate the power to make interim and emergency declarations, the provision for the making of such declarations while state or territory processes are being pursued, and finally a requirement for state processes to be exhausted before Commonwealth consideration, emphasising the role of the Commonwealth as an option of last resort.But these beneficial changes pale into insignificance in the scenario provided by this bill, where the states are easily and quickly accredited and the Commonwealth withdraws from involvement in virtually all cases except those few that are perceived as having national significance.12:37:004850Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I am pleased to make a short contribution in this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . I understand the government wants to stop the debate at a particular point in time. I must say that I do not feel particularly constrained by those arrangements. One of the government whips asked me if I was going to speak for five minutes. I am taking an opportunity to make a contribution in a debate that I believe is very important in Australia, and I will not be intimidated by arrangements that have been put in place. As far as I am concerned this parliament, of which I am a member, gives me the opportunity to come in here and speak on issues such as this which are important. I refuse now, in my new role, to play the games that are set up between the government and, to some extent, the Labor Party. I am prepared to cooperate as far as I can but I reserve my right to speak. In fact, this is the way this place should be conducted, in my view. If there is a debate going on here and members want to come and contribute to it, they should surely be able to come in and take part.LK6MAREKMr Marek—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think this is wide ranging and getting away from the debate. I ask you to draw him back to the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—I have been listening to the member. He should be addressing the question before the House and confining his remarks to that.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I understand that. I was making what is quite obviously an introductory comment about why I am speaking in the debate, and I do not care to be interrupted in that way.I have followed this debate very closely. As a member of this place I thought that that was what I should do and in the end make up my mind about how I should vote. Now, as a leader of a minor party in this place, that is the responsibility I have. Indeed, I am finding the privilege I now have is not to do as I did for so many years—come in here and sit with members on one side or the other, depending on what had been decided, often without even knowing what I was doing. I have thought about these issues, I have listened to the contributions and I have come to the view that, on this occasion, I will support the opposition in voting against this legislation. I want to say very briefly why I am going to do that.As I said, I listened to all contributions. I listened to the contribution of the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I do not agree with what he had to say, although I admire the conviction with which he says it and the logic that he expresses. I can only assume, because the government has only participated in this debate with two speakers—neither of them terribly convincing, having listened to them—that the government agrees with the member for Kalgoorlie's view. The member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), who was in here a moment ago, said `Hear, hear' at the end of the member for Kalgoorlie's contribution. I happen to regard the member for Riverina as a very decent man, but it really concerns me that he could say `Hear, hear' at the end of the member for Kalgoorlie's contribution. I am sorry about that. There must be something I am missing. The member for Riverina did not speak in the debate but he apparently agreed with everything that the member for Kalgoorlie said.I think the request of the opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), for this matter to be put aside and given further consideration is, in the circumstances, a very reasonable request. The way the debate has unfolded and the contributions made by Labor Party members underline some fundamental concerns. If the government takes the view, and it apparently does, that the matter will be sorted out in the Senate, then it further makes the point of how inadequate this House of Representatives is in dealing with important matters. I do not think, in the context of what is happening in our nation at the moment with the whole scenario of reconciliation, that there is any more important matter that we ought to be considering. Yet it seems to me that the government wants to push this bill through, with some amendments which we are not aware of at this point in time, and then ultimately sort the matter out in the Senate. I, as a member of this House, the people's House, do not regard that as a satisfactory way to proceed at all.This is important legislation because it deals with the protection of Australia's indigenous heritage. I happen to regard that as important. I regard it as important for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated in the debate, but if for no other reason, if you wanted to get to the bottom line, than that heritage is important to us as a nation and it is valuable as far as our tourism industry is concerned. Those points have already been made.I wonder where the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) is at this moment and whether she is in Canberra. She might be in her office listening. I hope so because she has, I now find, a deep interest in indigenous affairs. Her speech in the appropriation debate on Tuesday night, which I have read and re-read, was yet another low point in the standard of debate in this place. I am not sure whether it was she or the speech that she made that was described by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) as `deranged'. That may not have been my choice of word—I just looked it up in the dictionary and found that it meant `insane'—but certainly in that speech her ravings about the prospect of the establishment of independent race based states in Australia were quite incredible. Apparently, from trying to make sense of her speech, it is based on some treaty that is to be signed in 2004. I would have thought there was plenty of time between now and 2004 to understand what that particular treaty, which I had not heard of before, was all about.She talks in that speech about the disintegration of our nation. What utter rubbish that is when you read the speech carefully and do as I have done—re-read it and try to understand it. But I need to say, in the context of this debate, which is about Aboriginal affairs, that I do not believe that all of the member for Oxley's supporters are deranged. She made that point and I think she is quite right. But they are deluded. Many of them are thoroughly decent people. Many of them are my constituents and they are entitled to their views. But we who have different views have a responsibility to counter the member for Oxley's views in these particular areas. I saw yesterday a strong attempt to do that on behalf of the government, but as one who has attempted to invite the Prime Minister to do that much earlier I am disappointed that he chose not to do so.Perhaps what is happening is a process we have to go through as a nation, but I must say that that particular party, ironically named One Nation, is sowing the seeds of fear, hatred, division and mistrust. Those seeds will grow as they are nurtured, and I know that there is plenty of fertile ground out there for them to do so.Just very briefly, in finishing off—in an attempt to enter into the spirit of some arrangements that have been made here—I will quote the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on the legislation before us. I note that my running mate for the Senate in Queensland is a member of that particular council, and I am speaking, of course, of Kerry Blackman. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation said:A united Australia which respects this land of ours values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equity for all.This debate is in that broader context of the reconciliation processes going on.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—No, it is not; it is culture.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Of course it is related very specifically to cultural and indigenous heritage, but the broader context in which this debate is occurring in our nation at this time is the process of reconciliation, and I can only assume—and agree with some of the Labor Party members who have spoken—that the government have simply got it wrong again. The spirit of what they are attempting to do— let alone the technical problems which have been adequately pointed to by a number of members—and the timing are absolutely wrong. Hence my support for the member for Banks when he suggests that it would be better to put the bill aside for further consideration to be given to it.The Evatt report and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry made a number of recommendations, but this bill implements neither the bulk of the Evatt recommendations nor the recommendations of the 11th report of that joint committee. Evatt concluded:The Commonwealth has international, moral and legislative obligations to ensure that Aboriginal heritage in its broadest sense is nurtured and protected in a comprehensive and consistent way.But this bill does not—in my understanding of it—do that. It is complex and I have attempted to read and understand it, but in my view this bill does not achieve that. There are significant divergences between this bill and the Evatt recommendations. The majority of government members who will come in to vote in favour of this in a moment, probably do not understand that, but they ought to.There are a number of issues of concern. The whole question of the national interest is fundamentally important. A fact that has already been contributed in this debate is that the Commonwealth has responsibility for this issue in its entirety and not the states. ATSIC have said:The proposal to remove the right to negotiate from native title is now reinforced—and that is the context—by an effective Commonwealth withdrawal from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection.As I said, we have not heard much from government members on it, but my reading of this legislation is that it is deficient in a number of major respects.Motion (by Mr Cadman) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, I understand from the government that, if this goes through, the member for McPherson will be given an opportunity to speak in the consideration in detail stage.12:49:004852Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—in reply—I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . I would like to also thank the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) and I welcome his interest in Aboriginal issues. I would have liked to have had a bit of the support when I was shadow minister from 1990 to 1993.The report of the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund on this bill was tabled earlier this week, and the government is now carefully considering that report. If there are any amendments that are acceptable to the government that flow from the report, they will be moved in the Senate.I would like to take members through the government's policy on indigenous heritage protection that has led to this bill. The government made a commitment to ensure that, in consultation with states and territories, indigenous heritage was protected. The government considers that the minimum standards will ensure the proper protection of indigenous heritage. Each of the standards sets an appropriate benchmark which the states must meet to gain accreditation. The standards do not require uniform legislation because the Commonwealth recognises that there are different circumstances applying to the various states which need to be taken into account in the framing of heritage protection laws.It is widely acknowledged that the Northern Territory's heritage protection regime represents current best practice. While not requiring states to have a regime identical to the Northern Territory's, the standards in this bill reflect many of the elements of that regime. Accordingly, a number of states will be expected to make very significant improvements before they have the capacity to be accredited. As a safeguard, the bill requires accreditation decisions to be tabled in parliament as a disallowable instrument.The government made a commitment to seek a better integration of Commonwealth, state and territory processes, and it has achieved this. The bill contains an accreditation process under which states and territories whose legislation meets minimum standards specified by the Commonwealth can be accredited. Where states and territories are accredited, the Commonwealth will retain the ability to become involved in cases which raise national interest considerations. This scheme clearly delineates Commonwealth responsibilities as distinct from those of states and territories.The Commonwealth gave a commitment to retain its role as a forum of last resort. It has done this. Where states and territories are not accredited and do not offer a system that properly protects indigenous heritage, there will be full access to the Commonwealth. The government made a commitment to encourage states and territories to review their indigenous heritage legislation. This bill provides, for the first time, a real incentive for the states and territories to improve their indigenous heritage regimes. This incentive is that, where they improve their legislation so that they achieve accreditation, the Commonwealth will only be involved where national interest considerations exist. The government has met this commitment.Finally, the government gave an undertaking to fix the many problems with the current legislation that have led to legal challenges to the decisions of previous ministers. The most obvious and well-known example of this is Hindmarsh Island, which now has been finally resolved. Overall, this bill fully embodies the government's election commitments.I would now like to make a number of additional points. First, it should be recognised that the government has closely consulted indigenous people about the bill. It has also closely consulted the states and territories, as well as a range of other interested parties. Importantly, the government considers that the bill strikes an appropriate balance between the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to protect their heritage and their interests and the interests of the broader community.Second, it is being claimed that the bill excludes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from involvement in protecting their heritage. This claim is unfounded. Both the Commonwealth regime and the minimum standards require that indigenous people be treated as the primary source of information about whether an area or object is significant to them; in this way indigenous people have direct input into the process. The bill treats the views of indigenous communities themselves as having prime significance and clearly this is the way it ought to be.Third, it seems to have been overlooked that the minimum standards require the states and territories to provide the option for an advanced approval process. This will allow indigenous communities and people wishing to have development on their land to work together to ensure that developments do not disturb heritage areas. Indeed, all sides agree with the bill's emphasis on negotiation as a means of resolving heritage matters. Further, the Commonwealth system will provide significant protection for confidential indigenous information, and I understand that ATSIC largely supports this part of the bill. The minimum standards require the states and territories to provide protection for this category of information.Finally, there has been some uncertainty in the community about whether minimum standards require the states and territories to provide blanket protection for indigenous heritage. The government regards the first minimum standard as requiring this form of protection. The on-application system of protection, as provided by the current Commonwealth act, will not be acceptable at the state level. The government considers that the bill will provide proper protection for indigenous heritage throughout Australia and ought to be supported by all members of the House. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time. 12:58:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.B. Reid)81Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.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.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.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.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.Zammit, P. J.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.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. O'Connor, G. M.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.Charles, R. E. Lawrence, C. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Mossfield, F. W.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Somlyay, A. M. Bevis, A. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4854Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:03:004854Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 2, heading to the Schedule, page 71 (lines 1 to 3), omit the heading, substitute:Schedule 2—Amendment of other Acts(2) Schedule 2, page 74 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add: Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 199720 Section 3 (definition of Heritage Protection Act ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Heritage Protection Act means: (a) until paragraph (b) applies—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 ; and (b) after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1998 —that Act.21 Subsection 4(1) After "declaration", insert "or protection order".I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. In light of the High Court's recent decision upholding the validity of the Hindmarsh Island act, the government proposes these amendments to the 1998 bill. They are quite simple and straightforward. I don't want to steal the shadow minister's thunder, but I understand there was some confusion about circulating them to him in advance. I apologise to him, but I think he will still quite reasonably make his point.13:04:004855Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The opposition will be supporting these amendments and then we will vote against the third reading of the bill. I do make the point that I found it a bit disappointing that the first that the opposition knew of these amendments was when they were handed to me by the parliamentary secretary during the debate. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We will be supporting these amendments; they are technical amendments.I do want to make this point, however: the High Court decision on the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act, which was delivered on 1 April, vindicates the opposition's stance. Remember, the opposition, in effect, supported that bill and said it was not necessary. Our view was that it was not within the races power. The High Court did not decide, in that case, the races question. Basically, it was a 2-2-2 decision and the decision resolved around the fact that we were dealing with a ministerial discretion and parliament has the power to partially repeal legislation.This legislation at the time, we said, was not necessary because you were dealing with a ministerial discretion that was absolute; you had the Federal Court decision in Boobera Lagoon where the Federal Court judge said that he would not issue an interim order because he did not have the power to do a final order.I repeat: we will support these amendments. They are reasonable amendments in the light of the High Court's decision and so there will not be any dispute in relation to that. But I repeat what I said in the second reading debate, and I thank the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) for his kind words. What we say, in the opposition, and I repeat, is that this whole bill should be laid aside and there should be an attempt to reach cross-party support. It is significant that in the 11th report of the joint committee the government members talked about legislation of last resort. That is why they have been fairly silent in this debate since the 12th report was delivered—because the government's legislation does not meet even the parliamentary committee's minimum standards.This legislation will not get dealt with in the Senate before the election, if we have an early election. That provides an opportunity for proper consultation. The minister at the table said that there has been consultation with indigenous groups. They have been spoken to and, to a person and to a group, they have said this legislation is unsatisfactory.I think we can get there, and there should be better efforts by this government in relation to this bill. We are seeing the situation in Queensland now where the genie is out of the bottle. This is another area where we, as major parties, have to take leadership roles. We are leading up to the centenary of Federation and the 2000 Olympics and this sort of legislation is legislation that, if it is proceeded with, will see us condemned and will see those elements in our community who are not in favour of reconciliation, who are not in favour of acknowledging our past, feeding into people's fears and prejudices.The opposition does support these amendments because they are reasonable amendments, and the opposition will continue to support reasonable amendments. But we will hold the government to account on even their election promises.In the second reading debate I pointed to the coalition platform prior to the last election, which talked of legislation of last resort, which this is not, and which talked of legislation to do with providing natural justice. This does not. And the national interest component is just absurd as it presently stands.Basically, we will support these amendments but we will vote against the third reading of the bill. We will be moving substantial amendments to this bill in the Senate. There are parts of this legislation that are welcome, that are quite good, independent advice to the minister. That sort of stuff should be proceeded with. Take it out of the political arena and do not allow the ministers in there unless it is in the national interest. Independent tribunals with experts advising the minister is the way to go. Take the politics out of this portfolio. The best way to do it is for us as major players to try to reach agreement and stop using indigenous people as political footballs.13:08:004856Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I have not seen the government's amendments. I assume that is the way things are done. I do not know how we can vote for or against without having seen them. I take it, from what the shadow spokesman, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), has said, that they are technical; therefore, I am quite happy to support them. But I maintain my opposition to the original bill for some of the reasons that I mentioned earlier.I do not think the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) responded to a number of the points that were made in some of the very good speeches by speakers on this side of the House expressing their concerns about the bill. As I said at the outset of my original contribution, those concerns remain. I believe that there are good reasons why the suggestion of the member for Banks should not have been taken—that is, that further consideration should be given to this matter. In other words, that the bill should be laid aside for the time being.But, ultimately, my concerns are, fundamentally, about the way the government has handled this matter. As a former member of the government, I remain philosophically committed to many of the government's policy objectives—very much so. But in the area of Aboriginal affairs—which ultimately led to my resignation from the government; it was, in a sense, the final nail in the coffin—I believe the government has disqualified itself from having any credibility in dealing with Aboriginal affairs in this country. I do not say that lightly. I say that notwithstanding my great respect for the minister. The minister has a great heart when it comes to the indigenous people, but he has largely been taken out of the real action in this portfolio. I do not say that lightly either. It is of great concern to me that that seems to have happened. I find this in a sense uncomfortable, but I happen to believe that in this particular portfolio area the Labor Party has the most credible position.I just repeat what I said earlier: in the current climate the process of reconciliation is very important to the future of our nation. It is an issue that we must solve in the next few years. I was gagged in my original contribution and, as an elected member of this place, I resent that enormously—the fact that the government should see fit to gag a member who is speaking on an important matter. Unfortunately, government members themselves have not seen fit to make contributions to this debate in any great number; it has been contributed to largely from the Labor Party side.I resent the fact that the government saw fit to gag me. I restate my belief that the protection of Australia's indigenous heritage is important, and I heard the minister say that the government believes that. But, having listened to the debate, which I is what I am here to do, I do not believe that this legislation assures that. For that reason, I will continue to oppose the bill in its amended form.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4856Motion (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—put:That the bill be now read a third time.13:17:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. G.H. Adams)78Abbott, 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.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. 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.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.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.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.42Albanese, A. Beddall, D. P.Bradford, J. W. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.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. O'Connor, G. M.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Charles, R. E. Lawrence, C. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Beazley, K. C.Howard, J. W. Smith, S. F.Somlyay, A. M. Bevis, A. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Bills4857r4714857Consideration resumed from 1 June.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 10), omit "subsection (8)", substitute "subsections (8) and (8A)".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 26), after subclause (4), insert:(4A) Part 3 of Schedule 4 is taken to have commenced on 3 May 1998.(3) Clause 2, page 3 (lines 24 to 27), omit subclause (8), substitute:(8) If item 5 of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998 commences on or before the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 , items 76, 128 and 143 to 149 of Schedule 9 to this Act do not commence.(8A) Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 9 commence: (a) on the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 if that Act commences after the commencement of item 5 of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998 ; or (b) immediately after the commencement of item 5 of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998 if the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 commences on or before the commencement of that item.(4) Clause 2, page 4 (line 23) to page 5 (line 7), omit subclause (13), substitute:(13) Items 231A to 231C of Part 8 of Schedule 16 commence: (a) immediately after the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 if item 42 of Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 1998 commences before the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 ; or (b) immediately after the commencement of item 42 of Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 1998 if that item does not commence before the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 . (13A) Items 232 and 233 of Part 8 of Schedule 16 commence: (a) on the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 if item 50 of Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 1998 commences before the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 ; or (b) immediately after the commencement of item 50 of Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 1998 if that item does not commence before the commencement of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 .(13B) Part 3 of Schedule 17 has effect only if the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 commences before the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 1998 and, if so, Part 3 commences immediately after the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 1998 .(5) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Liability for debts or liabilities of a related body corporate48 After Division 6 of Part 5.7BInsert:Division 6A—Liability of a company for the debts or liabilities of a related body corporate588YA Liability of a company for the debts or liabilities of a related body corporate(1) On the application of the liquidator or a creditor of a company that is being wound up in insolvency, or on the application of the Commission, the Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just, order that a company that is or has been a related body corporate must pay to the liquidator the whole or part of the amount of a debt or liability of the first-mentioned company that is an admissible claim in the winding up.(2) In deciding whether it is just to make an order under subsection (1), the matters to which the Court must have regard include: (a) the extent to which the related body corporate took part in the management of the company; and (b) the conduct of the related body corporate towards the creditors of the company generally and to the creditor to which the debt or liability relates; and (c) the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the company are attributable to the actions of the related body corporate; and (d) the extent to which the insolvent company has, at any time, engaged in one or more transactions which have resulted in the value of the insolvent company's assets being reduced; and (e) any other relevant matters.(3) An order under this section may be subject to conditions.(4) An order must not be made under this section if the only ground for making the order is that creditors of the company have relied on the fact that another company is or has been a related body corporate of the company.49 Section 1317HDRepeal the section, substitute: 1317HD Recovery of profits, and compensation for loss, resulting from contravention (1) Where a person contravenes a civil penalty provision in relation to a corporation, the corporation, a creditor or the Commission may recover from the person, as a debt due to the corporation: (a) if that or another person has made a profit because of the act or omission constituting the contravention—an amount equal to the amount of that profit; and (b) if the corporation has suffered loss or damage as a result of that act or omission—an amount equal to the amount of that loss or damage; whether or not: (c) the first-mentioned person has been convicted of an offence in relation to the contravention; or (d) a civil penalty order has been made against the first-mentioned person in relation to the contravention.(2) Proceedings under this section may be begun only within 6 years after the contravention.(6) Schedule 9, page 107 (line 2) to page 122 (line 1), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 9-Amendment of the Insurance Act 1973Part 1-Changing the administration of the Act (main amendments)1 Subsection 3(1)Insert: APRA means the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.2 Subsection 3(1)Insert: ASIC means the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.3 Subsection 3(1)Insert: authorised person means a person authorised under subsection (1A).4 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Commissioner )Repeal the definition.5 After subsection 3(1)Insert:(1A) APRA may, in writing, authorise a person who is an APRA staff member, within the meaning of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 , to perform the functions of an authorised person under this Act.6 Section 8Repeal the section, substitute:8 General administration of Act(1) Subject to subsection (3), APRA has the general administration of this Act, other than section 113.(2) Subject to subsection (3), ASIC has the general administration of section 113.(3) The Treasurer may give APRA or ASIC directions about the performance or exercise of its functions or powers under this Act.7 Section 19ARepeal the section.8 Section 23Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".9 Section 24Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".10 Subsection 27(1)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".11 Paragraph 29(4)(a)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA or the Treasurer".12 Subsection 29(4)Omit "his or her", substitute "that".13 Subsection 30(2A)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".14 Subsection 30(4)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".15 Subsection 31(3)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA". 16 Paragraph 31(3C)(a)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".17 Subsection 31(3C)Omit "his or her", substitute "the".18 Subsection 33(2)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".19 Subsection 33(2)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".20 Subsection 33(2)Omit "his or her", substitute "APRA's".21 Subsection 33(3)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".22 Subsections 34(3) and (5)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".23 Subsections 36(2), (3) and (4)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".24 Subsections 36(2) and (3)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".25 Subsection 37(1)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".26 Subsection 40(5)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".27 Subsection 41(2)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".28 Subsection 44(9)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".29 Subsection 46(4)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".30 Section 49Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".31 Subsection 49C(2)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".32 Subsection 49E(3)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".33 Subsection 49G(2)Omit "the Commissioner's", substitute "APRA's".34 Subsection 50(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of prescribed person ) Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".35 Subsection 51(1)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".36 Paragraphs 51(1)(a) and (2)(c)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA". 37 Subsection 52(1)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".38 Paragraph 52(2)(a)Omit "the Commissioner's", substitute "APRA's".39 Paragraph 52(2)(c)Omit "himself or herself", substitute "itself".40 Paragraph 52(2)(d)Omit "by signed instrument", substitute "in writing".41 Subsection 52(6)Repeal the subsection.42 Subsection 54(1)Omit "his or her", substitute "the".43 Subsection 54(1)Omit "he or she", substitute "an authorised person (if the investigation is by APRA), or the inspector,".44 Subsection 54(2)Omit "Commissioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "authorised person".45 Subsections 55(1) and (2)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA or the inspector".46 Paragraph 55(1)(c)Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a specified authorised person".47 After subsection 55(2)Insert:(2A) APRA's powers under subsection (2) to make copies of, or take extracts from, books may be exercised on APRA's behalf by an authorised person.48 Paragraph 56(1)(c)Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "an authorised person".49 Subsection 56(2)Omit "the Commissioner" (first occurring), substitute "an authorised person".50 Subsection 56(2)Omit "the Commissioner" (second and third occurring), substitute "the authorised person".51 Section 57Omit "the Commissioner" (first occurring), substitute "an authorised person".52 Paragraph 57(b)Omit "the Commissioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "the authorised person". 53 Subsection 58(1)Omit "The Commissioner", substitute "An authorised person".54 Subsection 59(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(1) Powers under this Part may be delegated as follows: (a) APRA's powers may be delegated under section 15 of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 ; (b) an inspector may, by signed instrument, delegate his or her powers to an APRA staff member, within the meaning of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 .55 Subparagraph 60(2)(c)(iv)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA or the inspector".56 Subsections 60(3) and (4)Omit "his or her", substitute "APRA's or the inspector's".57 Subsections 60(5) and (6)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".58 Subsection 60(7)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".59 Subsection 62(1)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".60 Paragraph 62(7A)(a)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".61 Subsection 62(7A)Omit "his or her", substitute "APRA's".62 Subsection 63(2)Omit "or Commissioner", substitute "or APRA".63 Subsections 63(4), (5) and (6)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "the Treasurer or APRA".64 Subsection 63(6)Omit "his or her" (wherever occurring), substitute "the Treasurer's or APRA's".65 Subsection 93(2)Omit "he or she", substitute "APRA".66 Part IXRepeal the Part.67 Section 113Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "ASIC".68 At the end of section 113Add: (2) The following provisions of this Act have effect, in relation to this section, as if references to APRA were instead references to ASIC: (a) subsection 115(1); (b) subsection 115A(6); (c) section 124.69 Subsection 115(1)Omit "him or her" (first occurring), substitute "APRA".70 Subsection 115(1)Omit "him or her" (second occurring), substitute "APRA or the person".71 Subsection 115(2)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".72 Subsection 115A(6)Omit "him or her", substitute "APRA".73 Subsections 124(1) and (1A)Omit "under the hand of the Commissioner", substitute "under APRA's seal".74 Subsection 124(2)Repeal the subsection.75 Sections 125, 126 and 127Repeal the sections, substitute:125 APRA Act secrecy provisions applySection 56 of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 prohibits certain disclosures of information received under this Act.76 Paragraph 5 of the ScheduleOmit "him or her", substitute "APRA".Part 2—Changing "Commissioner" to "APRA" (main amendments)77 Amendment of the ActThe provisions of the Act specified in this Part are amended: (a) by omitting "The Commissioner" (wherever occurring) and substituting "APRA"; and (b) by omitting "the Commissioner" (wherever occurring) and substituting "APRA"; and (c) by omitting " the Commissioner " (wherever occurring) and substituting " APRA ".Note 1: The headings to sections 34A, 44, 48, 48B, 49J, 49N, 51, 52 and 55 are altered by omitting "Commissioner " and substituting "APRA ".Note 2: The headings to sections 56 and 60 are altered by omitting "the Commissioner " and substituting "APRA ". 78 Subsection 3(1) (definition of quarterly statutory accounts )79 Subsection 3(1) (definition of yearly statutory accounts )80 Subsections 3A(1) and (2)81 Subsections 22(1), (4) and (5)82 Section 2383 Section 2484 Subsection 27(1)85 Section 2886 Subsections 29(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)87 Subsections 30(1), (2), (2A), (4), (4A), (5) and (5A)88 Subsections 31(3), (3A), (3AB), (3B), (3C) and (3D)89 Subsections 33(2), (3), (6B), (8) and (10)90 Subsections 34(1), (1A), (1C), (1D), (2), (3), (4) and (5)91 Subsections 34A(2), (3), (4), (5) and (8)92 Subsections 36(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6)93 Subsections 37(1), (2), (2A), (5) and (6)94 Subsection 40(5)95 Subsections 41(2), (3) and (5)96 Section 4397 Subsections 44(1), (2A), (3), (4), (6), (7), (7AA), (7A) and (9)98 Subsections 45(2), (3), (4) and (5)99 Subsections 46(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)100 Section 48101 Subsections 48A(2), (4), (5), (6) and (7)102 Subsections 48B(1), (3), (4) and (5)103 Section 49104 Paragraphs 49B(1)(a) and (2)(a)105 Subsections 49C(2) and (3)106 Section 49D107 Subsections 49E(1), (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8)108 Subsections 49F(3), (4), (5), (7), (8) and (9)109 Subsections 49G(2), (5), (7), (10) and (12)110 Subsection 49H(5)111 Subsections 49J(1), (2A), (3), (4), (5), (5A), (6) and (9)112 Subsections 49K(2), (3), (4) and (5)113 Subsections 49L(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)114 Section 49N115 Section 49P116 Subsection 50(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of prescribed person )117 Subsections 51(1), (2) and (4) 118 Subsections 52(1), (1A), (1B), (1C), (2), (3) and (4)119 Subsection 54(1)120 Subsections 55(1) (other than paragraph (c)), (2) and (3)121 Paragraph 56(1)(a)122 Subsections 58(2) and (3)123 Subsections 60(1), (1A), (2), (3), (4), (4A), (5), (6) and (7)24 Subsections 62(1), (1A), (1B), (2), (3), (3B), (5), (7) and (7A)125 Subsections 63(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) and (14)126 Subsections 64(1) and (2)127 Subsections 93(2) and (3)128 Section 96129 Section 114130 Subsections 115(1) and (2)131 Subsection 115A(6)132 Subsection 116(1)133 Subsection 117(2)134 Subsection 118(4)135 Subsection 119(2)136 Paragraph 121(1)(c)137 Subsections 122(1) and (2)138 Subsections 123(1), (2), (3) and (4)139 Subsection 124(2)140 Subsections 129D(3) and (6)141 Section 130142 Section 132143 Subparagraphs 3(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) of the Schedule144 Subparagraphs 4(1) and (2) of the Schedule145 Paragraph 5 of the Schedule146 Subparagraph 6(4) of the Schedule147 Subparagraph 7(2) of the Schedule148 Paragraph 8 of the Schedule149 Subparagraphs 9(2) and (3) of the SchedulePart 3-Changing the administration of the Act (amendments to take account of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998)150 Paragraph 70(3)(f)Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "APRA or an authorised person".151 Division 3 of Part VII (heading)Repeal the heading, substitute:Division 3—General powers of APRA 152 Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part VII (heading)Repeal the heading, substitute:Subdivision A—Inquiries and directions by APRA153 Paragraph 79(3)(c)Omit "himself or herself", substitute "itself".154 Paragraph 79(3)(d)Omit "by signed instrument", substitute "in writing".155 Subsection 79(6)Repeal the subsection.156 Subsection 80(1)Omit "the Commissioner" (first occurring), substitute "APRA".157 Subsection 80(1)Omit "the Commissioner or the inspector may", substitute "an authorised person (if the investigation is by APRA), or the inspector, may".158 Paragraphs 80(1)(d) and (e) and subsections 80(2), (3) and (4)Omit "Commissioner", substitute "authorised person".159 Paragraph 81(2)(c)Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "an authorised person".160 After subsection 81(3)Insert:(3A) APRA's powers under subsection (3) to make copies of, or take extracts from, books may be exercised on APRA's behalf by an authorised person.161 Subsection 82(3)Omit "the Commissioner" (first occurring), substitute "an authorised person".162 Subsection 82(3)Omit "the Commissioner" (second occurring), substitute "the authorised person".163 Section 83Omit "the Commissioner" (first occurring), substitute "an authorised person".164 Paragraph 83(b)Omit "the Commissioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "the authorised person".165 Subsection 84(1)Omit "The Commissioner", substitute "An authorised person".166 Subsection 84(2)Omit "The Commissioner", substitute "The authorised person". 167 Subsection 85(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(1) Powers under this Division may be delegated as follows: (a) APRA's powers may be delegated under section 15 of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 ; (b) an inspector may, by signed instrument, delegate his or her powers to an APRA staff member, within the meaning of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 .168 Subsection 86(4)Omit "his or her", substitute "APRA's or the inspector's".169 Subsection 86(8)Omit "he or she" (wherever occurring), substitute "APRA".170 Subsection 92H(2)Omit "the Commissioner's", substitute "APRA's".Part 4-Changing "Commissioner" to "APRA" (amendments to take account of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998)171 Amendment of the ActThe provisions of the Act specified in this Part are amended: (a) by omitting "The Commissioner" (wherever occurring) and substituting "APRA"; and (b) by omitting "the Commissioner" (wherever occurring) and substituting "APRA"; and (c) by omitting " the Commissioner " (wherever occurring) and substituting " APRA ".Note 1: The headings to sections 74, 77, 79, 92G and 92H are altered by omitting "Commissioner " and substituting "APRA ".Note 2: The headings to sections 81, 82 and 86 are altered by omitting "the Commissioner " and substituting "APRA ".172 Section 65173 Subsections 68(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8)174 Subsections 70(1), (2), (3) (other than paragraph (f)) and (5)175 Subsections 74(1), (2) and (3)176 Subsections 75(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)177 Subsections 76(1) and (3)178 Subsection 77(1)179 Subsections 78(1), (2), (3) and (4) 180 Subsections 79(1), (3) and (4)181 Subsections 81(2) (other than paragraph (c)), (3) and (4)182 Subsection 82(1)183 Subsections 84(4) and (5)184 Subsections 86(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)185 Subsections 88(1), (3), (4) and (5)186 Subsections 92D(4) and (5)187 Subsection 92G(1)188 Subsection 92H(1)189 Subsections 92K(4), (5) and (6)190 Subsections 92L(2) and (3)191 Subsection 92M(10)192 Subsection 92Q(3)193 Subsection 92R(3)194 Subsections 94A(1), (2) and (5)195 Subsection 96(2)196 Section 97197 Paragraph 121(1)(d)(7) Schedule 10, item 8, page 124 (line 2), omit "writing signed by him", substitute "signed writing".(8) Schedule 16, item 2, page 185 (line 1), omit "subsection", substitute "paragraph".(9) Schedule 16, heading to Part 8, page 205 (lines 2 to 4), omit the heading, substitute:Part 8—Amendments to take account of Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 1998(10) Schedule 16, page 205 (before line 5), before item 232, insert:231A Subparagraph 6(1)(a)(vii)Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (vii) Part 13; and (viia) Part 14 (other than Division 2); and (viib) Parts 15 and 16; and231B After subparagraph 6(1)(c)(ii)Insert: (iia) Division 2 of Part 14; and231C Subsection 114D(2)Omit "the Commissioner", substitute "ASIC".(11) Schedule 17, page 207 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3-Amendment to take account of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 1998 12 Subsection 63(3B)Omit "the Commissioner's", substitute "ASIC's".(12) Schedule 18, item 15, page 210 (line 2), after "(Excluded Funds) ", insert "Supervisory ".(13) Schedule 18, item 17, page 210 (lines 8 to 11), omit the item, substitute :17 Section 15DAA (definitions of basic levy amount and levy )Omit "Superannuation Supervisory Levy Act 1991 ", substitute "Superannuation (Excluded Funds) Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1991 ".(14) Schedule 18, item 38, page 212 (lines 11 and 12), omit "Superannuation (Excluded Funds) Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1987 ", substitute "Superannuation (Excluded Funds) Taxation Act 1987 ".(15) Schedule 18, item 42, page 213 (line 11), omit "section 97 of".(16) Schedule 19, item 9, page 219 (line 22), omit "amended Act", substitute "old Act".(17) Schedule 19, page 225 (after line 17), after the definition of ASIC , insert: ISC employee means a member of the staff assisting the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner.(18) Schedule 19, page 225 (line 18), after "subitem 25(1)", insert "or subitem 25(3), as the case requires".(19) Schedule 19, page 226 (lines 7 and 8), omit the note.(20) Schedule 19, page 226 (after line 9), at the end of item 25, add:(3) An ISC employee may, at a particular time (the person's transfer time ), become an APRA employee because of a declaration under section 81C of the Public Service Act 1922 .Note about Schedule 19, item 25: The heading to item 25 (page 225, line 25) is altered by adding at the end "and the ISC ".(21) Schedule 19, page 226 (line 12), omit "because of item 25", substitute "as mentioned in subitem 25(1) or (3)".(22) Schedule 19, page 226 (line 19), after "RBA employee", insert "or an ISC employee".(23) Schedule 19, page 226 (line 24), after "RBA employee", insert "or an ISC employee".(24) Schedule 19, page 226 (line 26), after "RBA employee", insert "or an ISC employee".(25) Schedule 19, page 227 (line 3), omit "under item 25", substitute "as mentioned in subitem 25(1) or (3)".(26) Schedule 19, page 227 (line 4), after "Reserve Bank", insert "or the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, as the case requires,".(27) Schedule 19, page 227 (line 9), after "Reserve Bank", insert "or the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner".(28) Schedule 19, page 228 (after line 23), after item 29, insert:29A References in instruments to Reserve Bank or ISC become references to APRA(1) APRA may, in writing, declare that a specified instrument that: (a) was made before the APRA commencement; and (b) contains one or more references to the Reserve Bank or to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner;has effect, from a specified date, as if all, or specified, references in the instrument to the Reserve Bank or the Commissioner were references to APRA.Note: An instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.(2) A declaration under subitem (1) has effect accordingly.(3) In this item: instrument includes a document.(29) Schedule 19, page 230 (after line 29), at the end of item 34, add:(4) A reference in this item to an instrument in force includes a reference to an instrument that has been made but that is not yet in operation.(30) Schedule 19, page 232 (after line 15), at the end of Part 3, add:37A Modified operation of item 27 of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998Item 27 of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998 has effect as if the reference to the Commissioner were instead a reference to the Commissioner or to APRA.13:23:004864Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 1 to 4 and 6 to 30 be agreed to.Amendments Nos 1 to 4 are technical in nature and are a consequence of the identification of some minor errors in the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 relating primarily to incorrect numbering, references that are no longer appropriate and the delayed com mencement of a number of other acts and bills. Accordingly the government supports these amendments.Amendments Nos 6 to 16 are also technical in nature and are a consequence of the identification of some minor errors in the FSR bill relating primarily to incorrect numbering, references that are no longer appropriate and the delayed commencement of a number of other acts and bills. Accordingly the government supports these amendments.Amendments Nos 17 to 27 are opposition amendments which extend the provisions in the FSR bill relating to the transfer of the Reserve Bank's staff to cover ISC staff. The government considers these amendments are unnecessary for ISC staff as section 81C(3) of the Public Service Act 1922 enables the APRA board to determine any special terms and conditions of employment to apply to transferring staff.Also, the APRA chief executive officer and chairman elect have stated, pending a harmonisation of workplace terms and conditions they intend to apply the terms and conditions of the ISC certified agreement to ISC transfers with only those amendments as are necessary consequent upon the staff ceasing to be part of the APS. However in the interests of the expedient handling of the financial sector reform legislation package, the government will not oppose these amendments.Amendment Nos 28 to 30 are technical in nature and are a consequence of the identification of some minor errors of the FSR bill relating primarily to incorrect numbering, references that are no longer appropriate and the delayed commencement of a number of other acts and bills. Accordingly the government supports these amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the amendments to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.13:26:004865Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That amendment No. 5 be disagreed to.The government strongly opposes amendment No. 5 made by the Senate regarding insolvency administration within corporate groups and allowing creditors to sue company directors for breach of their duties whether they are solvent or not. They are extremely uncertain and impractical in their application and they potentially have far reaching and undesirable consequences. Can I underline that from the investigations we have undertaken as a government they are extremely uncertain and impractical.The Corporations Law is a cooperative scheme and generally changes require the approval of the states and the Northern Territory through the mechanism of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, or Minco. The government will not support any amendments that the council and the wider professional and business community have not been given the opportunity to examine. Minco already has the issue on its agenda and it is a proper forum for the issues to be considered in a comprehensive fashion. Further, the government considers it entirely inappropriate for issues such as this to be dealt with in this legislation, which deals with important financial sector reforms and the passage of which is awaited by consumers and business groups.The opposition and Democrat amendments—the Patrick amendments—are an opportunistic attempt to link a complex issue which is already being dealt with within the appropriate Commonwealth and state ministerial forum into this financial sector legislation.The government has placed on the record for some time its intention to have the new financial sector regulatory arrangements in place from 1 July. During the FSI report and since that time there has been extensive consultation and within the affected regulators considerable effort is being made to ensure the administrative requirements are in place to hit the ground running under the new arrangements.The government will not accept delays to this landmark legislation caused by purely political motives to frustrate reforms which are widely accepted within the financial community. The events in Asia demonstrate the need for strong regulation in the financial sector and for certainty. We will argue strongly in the Senate to ensure the subject of the Patrick amendments is properly considered in the appropriate forum rather than be used as a mechanism to frustrate the government's policy. The government wants to implement its policy in full and on time.13:29:004866McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—It does not take long for some governments to fall into complacency and arrogance. Here they are saying, `There is a serious problem—we can see it; we have sent it off to a ministerial committee and you all ought to be happy.' There are nine million Australians feeling insecure because of this—all the Australians who work for a living. Maybe you could get $10 million and you could put some ads on television telling them they all ought to be relaxed and comfortable because somebody is looking at whether they are all going to get sacked without their entitlements, because the government is going to do nothing. We could put this ad on—you are setting a precedent for it, $10 million—and go out and say, `The government is going to do nothing about your insecurity of entitlements'.While it is true to say these amendments should be called the Patrick amendments—and the parliamentary secretary was not wrong about that; they have their origin in response to and in the need to address the circumstances of the corporate scam Patrick engaged in when it sacked its work force, a scam which the current legislative framework allows—the significance is that it could happen to anybody next. This legislation cannot retrospectively fix the problem of what Patrick did, but it can fix the hole in the corporate legislative framework which the Patrick scam made evident. It cannot solve the whole problem; we would need amendments to the Workplace Relations Act to do that and my private member's bill in this House would solve that. It is a three-part structure.The private member's bill of the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), which goes to workers who lose their entitlements in the course of insolvency, is what we will call the Cobar Bill. My bill, which goes to the right of people to get their job back when they have been illegally sacked by a corporate scam, we will call the Patrick Bill. And these amendments will amend the Corporations Act to ensure that the debts or liabilities of a company deliberately sent to the bottom of the harbour to avoid workers being able to access their entitlements are transferred to a related body corporate, where that is a fair and just outcome.The government has tried to say that the circumstances of the Patrick corporate scam were unique. That is just plain wrong. The law as it stands makes it clear that any corporate group could organise their structure in this way. Any corporate group could easily alter their structure so they could do what Patrick's did, and any employee who is employed in this sort of structure is effectively left without any job security.What this amendment seeks to do is solve part of that problem. Of itself it cannot do it all, but this part cannot be done without these amendments. These workers have a legal entitlement, for example, to redundancy pay, accrued long service leave, and accrued holiday and sick pay; but it is enforceable, in the circumstances of a Patrick type scam, only against a company which has no assets. So it is an unenforceable right. In the circumstances this amendment addresses, the body that has deliberately structured itself so it cannot meet the entitlements of its employees is part of a bigger group which is continuing to operate and has assets.It is against those assets of the principal group that we say those workers should have a claim. It is against that group, against the related body corporate, as the Corporations Law would have it, that workers should have a claim. If it can be established that there are directors who have acted in a way which has made the employing company unable to meet the liabilities of the worker, then the creditors should be able to take action against those directors; whereas, at the moment, only the administrator, the liquidator or the receiver can.These amendments are very important. The Patrick scam could happen to anyone and these amendments ensure that it cannot happen again. The two amendments to the Corporations Law that we are seeking do the following: first, through new division 6A, they provide—HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not my habit to take frivolous points of order, but I do point out to you that the time allocated for the member's speech has in fact expired.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.13:34:004867Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) that the government strongly opposes amendment No. 5. Big surprise! We hardly expected the government to come in here and welcome amendment No. 5. What is amendment No. 5 doing and why are they opposing it? They are once again protecting their mates, because that is who this is aimed at—their very mates. We are told in this parliament—it is the new mantra of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—that people want security. The Prime Minister comes in here and trots out that people are looking for security.So many workers today are affected by shams such as the one Patrick's brought about. There is great insecurity out there in the work force. The one thing in my own area that I found that people were talking about, when they saw the dogs and the balaclavad thugs with their mace coming onto the waterfront, was that they knew that their bosses could do exactly the same to them. They could set up a sham.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Absolutely.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—As my colleague said, absolutely. They could set up a sham. They could strip the assets of the company and they would leave the workers with absolutely nothing. In fact, my staff tell me that tomorrow I am seeing someone in my office that this has happened to. The assets of the company have deliberately been structured in such a way that the workers are left with nothing. They have got absolutely no claim on those things.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would well know, the one thing that people want out there today is security—security of the country, security in a whole lot of things. Above all, what the workers want is job security. We hear much about what is happening in Asia. We see companies going bust. We hear other things. But if you are out there, if you are an ordinary worker with a couple of kids and a great mortgage hanging over your head, and balaclavad thugs with dogs come into your workplace and you are told in the middle of the night that you have not got a job and when you protest you have mace sprayed into your face, what sort of a message of security is that sending to the workers of Australia?Unless we support this amendment and the other measures, as the shadow minister has pointed out, this is going to happen—and not once or twice. It is going to become an occurrence all the time in the Australian work force because this is the way that we are going in the work force. Everyone has got their own view about the waterfront, whether it should be reformed or whether it should not be reformed and how you go about it, and who are the real villains in the piece—it is usually those in a suit and tie who are the real villains, not the workers.Everyone has one view about security—they want security in their jobs—and the message that came across as a result of what Patrick's did and the sham that they supported or instigated out there is that job security no longer exists in Australia. The opposition here today is trying to restore that basic tenet of workplace relations in Australia. We are trying to send a message to the workers that you can have job security. We are not prepared to stand aside and see these shams happen. If the company is deliberately sent bust and there are other people there that can be sued, they should be sued. That is sending a message. What we are trying to do is different from what the government is trying to do. The government is all about job insecurity because that is a way to control the workers—make them feel insecure and you have got them controlled. If you gave them job security you would think they might be able to stand up to the bosses. That is what we are about. We are about giving the workers of Australia a little bit of job security that you crowd over there are so keen to take away from them.13:39:004868McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I will speak briefly on this second occasion. I put the political framework, the value system, that underpins these amendments in my first contribution and I have had the opportunity already to speak to my private member's bill, so I would be being repetitious if I went on for too long. My colleagues also wish to speak and we want to facilitate this legislation being dealt with before question time. However, I do want to outline the amendments so that, on the record, it is clear what the amendments set out to do. I think when anyone listens to that they will see how modest and reasonable the proposals are and how extraordinary is the vehemence of the government's opposition to them.First, the amendments, through proposed new division 6A, provide that where a company is in receivership the court can make an order requiring a related company to pay the debts of the other company, including debts owed to employees like accrued entitlements. This same purpose is essentially set out in the proposed new section 178 of the private member's bill which I have introduced into this House to amend the Workplace Relations Act. It is designed to ensure that both acts would recognise the liability of related companies for accrued legal entitlements of employees.The requirements for liability of the related company in this case are somewhat different. The matters which would be in my Workplace Relations Act amending bill and the matters which the court will take into account in determining whether to make an order are as follows: the extent to which the related company took part in the management of the employer, the conduct of the related company towards the creditors of the company generally and to the creditor to which the debt or liability relates—in this instance the employees—and the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the employer are attributable to the actions of the related company, as is the case in Patrick's, and any other relevant matters. This provision will give greater security to employees in relation to their accrued legal entitlements.The second aspect of the amendments, which propose to amend section 1317HD, would give creditors the right to bring proceedings for the recovery of debts against directors of companies acting in contravention of the Corporations Law. At present, only the company, usually through the liquidator or receiver, has this right. Under this provision, creditors such as employees will be given the right. In the Patrick's case, it 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 and it would obviate the necessity for the new tax on our exports which the government is proposing to introduce through the levy bill it is seeking to have passed through the parliament.There is a lot to be said about these amendments. They are very important and fundamental to the issues of employment security, of which my colleague the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) spoke, but to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak to this matter I will make no further remarks on it; I simply recommend the amendments to the House.13:42:004868Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Right now there are people in Newcastle amongst the Patrick work force who have an enormous apprehension about whether their entitlements earned over many, many years of service are available to them or whether they have been given away.What is interesting here is the sense of deja vu. We are seeing a re-run of 1981-82 when the then Treasurer was advised of the bottom of the harbour scam by Treasury, was alerted to the problem, but sat on it for a very long time. The government is now telling the companies, `This is okay, it is legal; go ahead and do it.' It is actually worse than that: any director who does not do it, who does not entitlement strip—the new form of asset stripping—could be derelict in their duties to their shareholders. The capacity now to differentiate or separate the employing company from the hiring company can be quite clear. The company that gives the contract pays the second company that provides the labour. The capacity for a company to shift the entitlements and leave it sitting in a shell with no capacity, with no resources, is now almost an obligation.I have accountants who tell me that back in 1981-82 they lost customers because they felt it was immoral to do bottom of the harbour deals. Business went away and said, `I am not asking for morality; I am asking to do what is legal.' The then government said it was legal; the current government is saying to business in Australia, `This is legal, we are looking into it and it will take us a long time'—nod, nod, wink, wink. It will take at least six, nine, 12 or 18 months for the government to get around to this via the ministerial council. In the meantime, it will all be done. Those who are going to do it will have done it by then; it will be too late.What is being proposed in these amendments means that the message must go out now, instantly, from this parliament. Once we are aware of a problem, we must signal that problem, because it is quite possible that future state legislation could take its date as of today. The courts could apply from today the intent of the legislation, and that could then follow through. By the government opposing it, it gives the courts in the future a very clear message not to apply the intent of the legislation as of today. The government is setting a precedent, given the intent and the spirit of the legislation, for the courts in the future. A company that takes part in this activity could in future base its defence on the government's speech of today. It is not yet committed to this kind of legislation and, therefore, no court could take it into account until after the states have enacted it.We were called opportunistic; we were accused of being political. But the fact is that at the moment you have got in Asia a firestorm, a maelstrom. This government is not just sitting on its hands, it is actually putting them in the drawer and shutting the drawer, about to call an election. It is telling business people, `We're about to call an election. This is not really important and we are going to oppose any possible change being put on the agenda in a serious way.' That is disgraceful. It is worse than what happened in 1981-82 because this is the equivalent of Costigan.What has happened with the recent court cases was the equivalent of the Costigan royal commission that flushed the bottom of the harbour out of the drawer of the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, and into the open. It is now in the open, Mr Prime Minister. Deal with it now, properly, or else you are giving approval to business and a carte blanche to go ahead.13:46:004869Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—I simply want to record my very strong support for this amendment and for the comments that have been made by the shadow minister, the member for Canberra, Bob McMullan; the member for Throsby, Colin Hollis; and my colleague the member for Newcastle, Allan Morris, in connection with this. What we need to do is to accept this amendment and send a very clear message to those corporations out there that are in a legal frenzy at the present time restructuring themselves. I wonder what is going to be the position if we find that Burnie pulp mill has undertaken a restructuring exercise of this kind?I do not want to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Braddon, Chris Miles, at the present time. He has the responsibility, I know, for representing the government in connection with this matter. But what if that is the position? There are hundreds of people down there ready to lose their jobs and if Burnie pulp mill has undertaken a restructuring exercise of this kind, a scam of this kind, to deny to those hundreds of employees their accumulated entitlements in long service leave, sickness benefits and so on, what then will be the position?It is all right for us to say, `Let's delay this. Let's give reasonable consideration to this so that we can legislate more effectively about it.' We have got to do it now. The Senate said, `Let's do it now.' And, as the member for Newcastle said, as soon as we carry this amendment, it gives an indication to all of those people out there, `Do not try it, because we are a wake-up to you.' It was not just with Patrick. It was out at Cobar; it was down at Goulburn; it was up at Grafton. All of those arrangements have been put in place to deny workers their fundamental rights—really smart, bloody behaviour on the part of these scammers who will restructure the corporation to make sure that workers do not get their entitlements. We will not tolerate it; nor should this government.13:48:004870Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I said the morning after the actions of this government and Patrick were revealed that every coalminer in my electorate should be going to work that day and asking their employer who, exactly, they work for. The part of the bill of the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) that the government attempts to knock out, if you like, goes to the heart of the bill; and it goes to the heart of providing accountability. The first question then becomes: do we need more accountability?Let us have a look at the companies which largely run the mining sector in my electorate and ask them whether their record justifies self-accountability. And I will put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, it certainly does not. Have a look at what Arco did at Gordonstone and have a look at what Rio Tinto has been prepared to do at the Mount Thorley mines and the Hunter Valley No. 1 mine in my electorate. There must be accountability, and coalminers in my electorate deserve protection from multinationals, some of which have not only demonstrated their willingness to gut the working conditions of working Australians but, indeed, on the international scene have shown a preparedness to violate basic human rights. This is an amendment that must be supported by this house. Question put: That the motion (Mr Miles's ) be agreed to.13:54:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)81Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.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.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.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.45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Smith, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.4871Motion (by Mr Miles) agreed to:That Mr Andrew, Mr Hicks and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No 5. of the Senate.13:58:004871Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—On behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 5 of the Senate, I present the reasons, which are being circulated to honourable members.The reasons read as follows—Senate Amendment Number 5The amendment proposes:(a) the insertion of a new Division 6A into Part 3 of the Corporations Law to extend the liability of bodies corporate to cover the debts of related insolvent companies if the Court thinks "just"; and(b) repealing section 1317HD of the Corporations Law which provides that corporations may recover compensation from persons contravening the civil penalty provisions of the Corporations Law for loss or damage suffered as a result of the breach, and reintroducing the section to include corporations, creditors and the Australian Securities Commission as allowable applicants for such action.The House of Representatives does not accept the Senate amendments, which present very serious practical difficulties and far-reaching unintended consequences.. The provisions give little guidance to parties and their advisers as to permitted and non-permitted conduct. The "just" test is applied by the Court in hindsight which dramatically increases uncertainty in business decision-making.. The erosion of "firewalls" around entities may have very severe confidence effects on con glomerates, due to over reactions to news of potential claims. - In the case of financial institutions, depositors may over react to news of claims on a deposit-taking institution by creditors of a related member of the conglomerate. A run on the deposits of institutions could then spread to others. - The undermining of confidence in conglomerates is likely to unnecessarily adversely affect share prices.. The likely increase in litigation arising from claims by a range of different creditors could frustrate the timely and cost-effective administration of an insolvent company, thereby prejudicing the claims of the main body of creditors.. Allowing creditors to sue directors of financially healthy companies effectively gives them a statutory derivative action, something which even shareholders do not currently have. Further, the derivative right has no safeguards against abuse, in contrast to the Government's proposed statutory derivative action for shareholders under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program.The House of Representatives believes that the issues should be considered in a comprehensive fashion and in a wider policy context than simply by amendments to the Corporations Law.In addition, amendments to the Corporations Law generally require the approval of the Ministerial Council for Corporations ('MINCO') under the Corporations Agreement that underpins the national regulation scheme for companies and securities. The issue of protection of employee entitlements and asset-stripping has already been placed on the agenda of the next meeting of MINCO by the New South Wales Attorney-General, the Hon. JW Shaw QC, MLC. The House of Representatives will not support any amendments prior to MINCO considering their full impact on the Corporations Law and policy.Motion (by Mr Miles) agreed to:That the committee's reasons be adopted.Bills4871r4664871Consideration resumed from 1 June.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 21 to 26), omit paragraphs (5)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) if the ADI was an ADI at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—a day in the period from and including that 17 March to and including the following 14 April; or(b) if the ADI was not an ADI at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—the day after that 17 March when the ADI became, or becomes, an ADI.13:59:004872Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the requested amendment be made.Mr Speaker, these Senate amendments to the various levy impositions bills are necessary to correct an omission on the methodology used to determine on what asset base the levy on an entity is calculated. The existing clauses inadvertently preclude a range of dates that the Treasurer may need to use, which may not allow the Treasurer to determine an appropriate date for some entities to measure their assets. The amendments contain no new policy and simply ensure that the government's policy in relation to the imposition of levies on various financial sector organisations is effectively implemented. The proposed amendments have no financial impact. Accordingly, the government supports these amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Arrangements48724872Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) will be absent today from question time and, the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) will respond on her behalf.Questions Without Notice487248724872Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I add to a question that I was asked yesterday by the shadow minister for transport, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner). He asked me about some document that was referred to in the Senate on 23 October. I said that I would find out what I could about it. I would like to table the letter from Dr Peter Shergold, the Secretary of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. The letter is self-explanatory and it states that there was no involvement by my office in the process in any way.Questions Without Notice487248724872Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister justify the use of more than $10 million of taxpayers' money to sell, before the election, the GST to the Australian public? Is it not the case that, under past governments, publicly funded information campaigns have only occurred when government policy was finalised and announced, or where appropriate legislation had been introduced? Is it not the case that none these conditions have been satisfied here?4872Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The last mentioned claim by the Leader of the Opposition is according to my information—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Quite wrong.ZD4Mr HOWARD—quite wrong. Without any reference to any notes, I can remember back in the middle 1980s, when you were having a tax summit, you spent a lot of public money advertising the need for taxation reform. That is when you had a bit of backbone on the subject of taxation reform—before you lost it.But I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked me what I choose to call `the Bill Hunter question'. Bill Hunter was a very talented Australian actor who featured in many government funded advertisements under the former government.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the government will remain silent; so will the members of the opposition.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, the question was very explicit: have there ever been situations where a campaign of this kind has been funded without policy having been previously finalised, announced, or legislation introduced? That was the question. It was very explicit. Can we please have an explicit answer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The provisions of section 145 of the standing orders are being complied with. The Prime Minister will proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And my answer is going to be even more specific than his question. I am told that the Keating government spent $315.5 million on advertising and market research over the five-year period between 1991 and 1996.I was mentioning Mr Hunter. Mr Hunter's most famous contribution to promoting the programs of the former government was, in fact, his contribution to publicising the One Nation program. If my memory serves me correctly—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Working Nation.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Working Nation, that is right.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You had a One Nation statement. That was Keating's statement in 1991.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Are you saying that she pinched the name of the party from Paul Keating? I would not get too clever with those interjections.K26LATHAMMr Latham—You have One Nation on the brain.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think it probably would have been in about March, April, May of 1994, if my memory serves me correctly, that Working Nation was brought down.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, we had a policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Equally, if my memory serves me correctly—DT4CREANMr Crean—And you haven't got one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—it was not until the former Prime Minister took that trip down Dunrossil Drive and went to the Governor-General late in January of 1996, almost two years later, that the Bill Hunter advertisements were taken off television.DT4CREANMr Crean—Rubbish.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In other words, those advertisements ran and ran. Working Nation had been introduced two years earlier, but they were still running advertisements when Keating pulled the plug in January of 1996. They spent $9 million on promoting Working Nation. They spent $7 million in 1992 and 1993 on just the superannuation guarantee campaign. If I remember rightly, that was the one where the dollars were falling off the tree, or where you were planting the dollars and the trees were sprouting forth, like plants in the spring. And they spent $10 million in 1995 on the superannuation community education program. Between 1985 and 1987, they spent $6.2 million on a tax reform advertising campaign—and, in 1997 dollars, this equates with spending of between $9 million and $10 million.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order very squarely on the question of relevance. The question was deliberately very specific. How can you claim a precedent for any of these things, when on every previous occasion policy had been finalised, announced—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He does not have the call. The Prime Minister is in order.Government members interjecting—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Oh, this wouldn't be a precedent, would it? Oh, no!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The deputy leader's knowledge of past Labor expenditure on advertising is as insubstantial as his knowledge of past balance of payments statistics. So it goes on. You conducted continuous market research by the ALP's then official pollster, ANOP. You engaged print, radio and television advertising on the need for taxation reform—not just a particular change in policy but, indeed, the need for taxation reform, which is the very point at issue. You spent enormous amounts of money publicising the policies of the government. Of course, in defending the decisions that had been taken, the former Prime Minister Mr Keating in October 1986 said:For some time the government has been conducting—listen to this—a public information campaign on various aspects of the tax reform package. Consistent with that duty to keep the public informed, the Australian Taxation Office has already produced television, radio, newspaper and printed material.What we are doing is completely proper. What we are doing fulfils our obligation to the Australian public. What the Labor Party did was advertise not only the need for reform but also the details of reform. I want to make it very plain that we have every intention of ensuring that the Australian public is made well aware of the details of this very important reform to the Australian taxation system that will produce a stronger, better, more secure, more stable and more safe Australian economy.48744874Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the developments in Australia's economy reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics over the past week?4874Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The past week has demonstrated again the fundamental strength of the Australian economy, and it has demonstrated again the wisdoms of the policy that was put in place by my government when it came to power in March 1996. The statistics that have come out have demonstrated very clearly that the Australian economy cannot expect to be untouched by the Asian economic downturn, but because of the policies we have put in place the Australian economy is in a strong, stable and secure situation in a very difficult part of the world.On Monday the ABS retail trade data showed continued growth in retail turnover, especially for department stores. On Tuesday the ABS building approvals data for April rose by 8.3 per cent, and that followed a rise of 9.2 per cent in March. Private dwelling approvals are at their highest level since 1994. The national accounts data released yesterday showed that Australia's economic growth increased by 1.3 per cent in the March quarter to be 4.9 per cent higher in through the year terms. This growth puts Australia virtually at the top of all industrial countries. I noted the remarks of a number of economic commentators yesterday to the effect that most other countries would give their eye teeth to have the sort of economic performance, the economic strength and the economic growth that this country is securing at the present time.Those accounts reported strong growth in communications services and construction and manufacturing. The national accounts also showed that productivity continues to rise and that inflation remains low. Despite the claim by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that there was upward pressure on interest rates, the reality is that we heard yesterday yet another announcement by the Commonwealth Bank of a further reduction in housing interest rates. The current account deficit naturally reflected, as the figures released during the week showed, the impact of the Asian economic downturn on Australia's exports.I simply make the point that, if we had not done what we had done with the economy over the last two years, that current account deficit situation would be a lot worse. Our situation would be a lot more vulnerable, and I believe a growing number of Australians are saying thank heaven's the Howard-Fisher government had the courage to take the budget measures and the economic measures that it did, because it has made us safer and secure. The alternative on offer is a distinct economic risk to Australia's future.48744874McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you deny you were involved in a cabinet discussion in July last year which involved a proposal that the government take an activist role in supporting a radical plan by Patrick's involving the prospect of industrial action to give them the option of dismissing their employees and rehiring different people under different arrangements?4875Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not canvass what goes on at cabinet meetings.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, big surprise! I would be the first Prime Minister in the 24 years that I have been in this place on both sides to get up and say, `Let me tell you what went on in cabinet yesterday.' I remember Gough Whitlam doing that every day when I came here! I remember Malcolm used to do it every day too. I can remember Bob Hawke doing it, and I can remember Paul Keating doing it. Of course you do not canvass what goes on in cabinet.Let me tell you what I will canvass. I will canvass the determination I had when I became Prime Minister to reform the Australian waterfront. I will canvass the fact that I authorised the Minister for Transport and Regional Development in my first government to pursue an active strategy. I make no apology for pursuing an active strategy. If you are elected on a policy of reforming the waterfront, what do you do: do nothing about it? There is this incredible proposition that there is something wrong with a government that wants to reform the waterfront. Of course we were active about it. Of course we talked to a lot of people. We even had discussions with representatives of the trade union movement.I can remember about two or three months after I became Prime Minister some members of the MUA had a stroll down one of Sydney's streets, they gathered outside my office and sang a few songs and said a few words. I invited a delegation up for morning tea. It included John Coombs and other representatives of the union. We talked about the issue of the waterfront. We agreed that there should be further discussion between representatives of the trade union movement, because it was self-evident that if you wanted to try to reform the Australian waterfront you had to talk to everybody. You had to examine a whole lot of options, test a whole lot of theories and hear a whole lot of views. Of course you did.I listened to what the trade union people had to say on that occasion. I understand that there were a number of discussions involving Mr Sharp, who was then the minister for transport and the minister for workplace relations. I understand that those discussions ended not because of the refusal of my government to talk to the union but because some time in December last year during the discussions the union representative simply got up and walked out of that discussion. That was an indication of how far they were prepared to go. Fully consistent with that, of course I pursued an active policy. Of course I wanted waterfront reform. I had some discussions with representatives of stevedoring companies. Of course I have. I do not make any denial of that. Why would I? It would be a very strange Prime Minister who wanted waterfront reform who did not talk to the principal players. It would be very odd indeed. My minister also had numerous discussions, and all sorts of options were canvassed.It was always my goal to achieve waterfront reform, but it was always to be upon the basis that that reform would be achieved in accordance with the laws of Australia. I am proud of the fact that we have tried to get waterfront reform and I remain as determined as ever to see that the Australian economy is benefited by a reformed, more competitive Australian waterfront where the encumbrance and the blight of compulsory unionism have been removed.48754875Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House why the government has decided to provide a community education and information program on Australia's taxation? Treasurer, are there precedents for such a program, and how numerous are they?4875Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has decided to provide a community education and information program on Australia's taxation system. I thank the member for his question and his interest because Australians are entitled to know about how their taxation system works—after all, they pay it. What is more, they are entitled to know whether or not we can improve the taxation system. It is in the interests of millions of Australians to have a better taxation system and, as part of community education, that involves telling them how the system is currently working and how it can be improved.I am asked, `Are there any precedents for such campaigns?' As the Prime Minister has said, between 1991 and 1996, the Keating government spent over $300 million—$320 million I think the Prime Minister said—on advertising and market research, $9 million on Working Nation, $7 million on the super guarantee, $10 million on the superannuation community education campaign. Between 1985 and 1987, Labor spent $6.2 million on a tax reform advertising campaign, which equates in today's dollar terms to around $10 million. The government in fact came to the conclusion that it should set aside about $10 million because it searched back in the precedents and found that that was what the Labor Party had thought was necessary back in 1985.I was rather surprised to hear that when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked about this this morning he fulminated against it—`Shameless! Outrageous!'—with all of the anger that he could muster at the doors this morning. He was asked:How does this differ from 1985 when Bob Hawke used taxpayers' money to sell government policies?EVANS: There's a very obvious difference. In 1985, there'd been introduced, or foreshadowed, absolutely major changes to the tax system with capital gains and fringe benefits taxes needing to be explained in detail to those who are going to be affected by them. The ads, as I remember them, were entirely of that information character.We would like to help him a little bit more with his memory. I do actually have one of the ads that the Australian Labor Party put out. This one came from the Financial Review of Wednesday, 19 June 1985—these were the information campaigns that the Australian Labor Party was running—`You've heard the rumours. Now get the facts.' A guide to tax reform . That led me off looking for this book, A guide to tax reform , that was being advertised, of a purely informational character before any policy had been decided. I was particularly taken by this bit on page 9 that the Australian Labor Party was advertising in June 1985. Listen to this:A broadly based consumption tax set at a higher rate of, say, 12½ per cent would—. provide much larger income tax cuts.. reduce marginal tax rates substantially at all income levels.. . . . . . . . .. increase the tax take from people who continue to avoid or evade income tax.. provide enough revenue to enable a more generous net benefit for wage and salary earners . . .. enable the wholesale tax to be abolished altogether.That is such a good leaflet, it almost matches my own. In fact, there is an argument about copyright.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the Treasurer might not go on too long.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—More! More! More!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If his colleagues would restrain their enthusiasm, he might be able to conclude his answer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This also took me back to that memorable ABC documentary Labor in Power when former Treasury official David Morgan, now working for Westpac, said:For me, the breakthrough, I think came around 1 am on the Monday morning when Gareth Evans threw down his papers and took off his glasses and said—GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—And threw an ashtray.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, no, no. He threw down his papers and took off his glasses; he did not throw down his glasses and take off his papers. He took off his glasses and said:`I've listened to this consumption tax argument for two days and I've been waiting for a hole to be punched in it and none of you have been able to punch a hole in it.'That is advertising for tax reform.48764876Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall being asked on 15 August last year whether he had a secret plan to overcome a waterfront dispute and crush the MUA? Does he recall his answer? He said:Well we have . . . Governments always have plans, but I don't want you to see any of those plans in a belligerent context.. . . . . . . . .. . .. we would never want to crush a union.Prime Minister, when you made that statement, hadn't the government already established `a small team' to conduct the detailed planning and development of an `activist' strategy to support the dismissal of the waterfront employees and the hiring of different people under new arrangements? And wasn't this the subject of a joint submission to cabinet from ministers Reith and Sharp in early July? Prime Minister, how can you claim you `never ever' had a belligerent plan to crush a union?4877Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I said in answer to the earlier question, I do not intend to canvass cabinet matters, but I very happily repeat that I set out after I became Prime Minister in quite an active way to achieve waterfront reform. I wanted to reform the Australian waterfront because a reformed waterfront is good for Australia. It has never been our objective to destroy unions or to destroy unionism. It has only been our objective, and proudly our objective, to reform the Australian waterfront and to provide choice on the Australian waterfront. The destructive behaviour in this whole dispute has of course been on the part of the Maritime Union of Australia. The Maritime Union of Australia for a period of three years refused to abide by an agreement that was entered into between the union and the Patrick company and, for a period of months leading up to April this year, the Maritime Union of Australia set out to destroy the business of its own employer. That is what they set out to do.Our goal is not to destroy unions. Our goal is to increase jobs. Our goal is to attract more investment. Our goal is to improve productivity on the Australian waterfront. As I have said before and as I will say again: our policy objective was to achieve the goal of waterfront reform. In the course of pursuing that objective, of course we canvassed numerous options with the players. Why wouldn't we? When you were in government you canvassed numerous options with players in industrial issues. The evidence came out in the book written by Brad Norrington the Sydney Morning Herald journalist on the pilots dispute in 1989, where a former Labor government conspired with the trade union movement to import foreign pilots into Australia to take the jobs of Australian pilots. As that book so graphically demonstrates, when industrial disputes start, when industrial issues are involved, of course there are regular discussions and exchanges about all manner of things between governments, companies and trade unions. But at all stages the objective was to achieve waterfront reform. The objective was to give freedom of choice on the Australian waterfront. Our goal was to do that, as always, consonant with the laws of Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cook.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will restrain their enthusiasm.48774877Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—Thank you for your support. My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you advise the House of the current state of negotiations between the various parties on the waterfront? Just how determined is the government to reform the waterfront?4877Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I actually happen to have with me an article dated 15 August 1997, the very day of the quotation from the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago in his question to the Prime Minister. It is an article in the Financial Review by Pamela Williams. In that article there is a quote from John Coombs which, quite frankly, is typical of this union. This quote is not surprising. We have heard them on many occasions. At that time, if my memory serves my right, the shipping reform group was looking at maritime issues generally. This is what Mr Coombs said in respect of one issue, namely, cabotage. He said:`We will go all out if they cut cabotage,' said Coombs. `We will close the joint down, and I've told Sharp that, six inches from his face. I've told the Prime Minister as well.'Since the day we were elected, the MUA has been threatening to close Australia down, and that should hardly be a surprise. They did it when Labor was in office when you attempted to sell ANL. One of the great humiliations of Labor's time in office was when the MUA forced you to cave in as usual.We as a government have a national responsibility to ensure that in the face of industrial action all steps would be taken and would have been considered in advance to keep the ports open. We make no mistake about that. We have said it on many occasions on the public record. Are we any different from any other government? No, we are not. It is just that the difference between you and us is that we have had the guts to be prepared to introduce legislative changes and to advocate a reform in the way in which you never were prepared to when you were in office.In respect of the current situation, it is interesting. What have the MUA done in respect of P&O? They have cut off negotiations. Why? Because P&O have taken legal redress against them in the New South Wales Supreme Court seeking appropriate relief in respect of the industrial action taken by the MUA in Adelaide and in Newcastle.In respect of Patrick, on the advice that I have there has certainly been some negotiations this week. I am not sure where those negotiations are going. I sense from some of the reports—they are second hand—that there are some in the trade union movement who are uncertain as to whether or not they should face the reality of coming to an agreement about reform. We understand that the National Council of the MUA is meeting today. That meeting will obviously be considering their attitude to the legal proceedings to reform and all the current issues in this dispute.In respect of the legal proceedings, I can inform the House that, whilst the MUA has been determined to get rid of the administrators, yesterday on their application to the courts to terminate the administration they actually sought an adjournment of those proceedings, and they sought an adjournment of the application to appoint a court appointed receiver. Those adjournments were through to 9 July.In respect of discovery, which is an important aspect of the principal proceedings, discovery is due on 24 June, all other things being equal. We have said to the Commonwealth's lawyers that we must meet that deadline. That is a deadline set by the court, of course. There are thousands of pages, so I am informed, which would comprise the documents which would fall within the discovery processes, reflecting the very wide ambit of the legal claims being made by the MUA.Our legal team have a lot of issues to look at in respect of these documents, including public interest immunity for cabinet documents and other documents—as much for this case as it is relevant to the precedents that it would create in respect of any other proceedings in the future.From the Commonwealth's perspective, I can advise the House that we will strongly defend the claim and deny the claim. The fact of the matter is, as we have said consistently through these whole proceedings, while the rights of the parties in the judicial process are important and will be proceeded with in a proper way in respect of the judicial system, the point I make is that in the end, for the national interest, we must have reform on the Australian waterfront. What I can say to both the MUA and Patrick and to any other interested parties is that, from the government's perspective, in the end, regardless of the court proceedings, important as they are, the government's position will not change. We will continue to press for reform because we believe it is in the national interest. So what I say to the parties is that sooner or later you are going to have to face the reality of significant reform.I say to the Labor Party that your consistent support for the MUA will be seen by the Australian public for what it is: support for a union which has not been prepared to reform. Therefore, I think it is for you an electoral liability.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the minister might draw his answer to a conclusion.WI4Mr REITH—To conclude, Mr Speaker, I make this point. From the government's perspective, this is an important issue. I do not know when the legal proceedings will come to the matters being heard before the courts. I do not know when the next federal election is; that is a matter for the Prime Minister. But I do say that we will continue to campaign on waterfront reform because it is important for this country, and I say to the parties that they ought to understand that this government is not going to budge on the absolute national imperative to see an efficient waterfront.48794879Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he recall telling Mike Carlton on 7 May this year in relation to the waterfront:I simply say again, if people have got allegations to make, let them make them. If people have got documents to drop, let them drop them.Prime Minister, have you seen this document, dated 7 July 1997, entitled `Waterfront Strategy—Supplementary Paper for Cabinet Consideration', and signed by Peter Reith and John Sharp? Doesn't this document show that as early as July 1997 the government had before it a plan to clear the way for the stevedores to dismiss their employees and rehire different people under new arrangements? I seek leave to table the document.4879Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will certainly have a look at that document.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will have a look at it. But what may or may not be in that document does not in any way contradict what I have said. I make no apology whatever for the fact that I have been in favour of waterfront reform, I have been willing to pursue waterfront reform and I have been willing to pursue a range of options, consistent with the laws of Australia, in order to achieve waterfront reform.I do not have the file with me, but I have been provided with evidence of all manner of discussions that went on between the former Labor government and people in the stevedoring industry about reforming the Australian waterfront. Let us get it straight: if you are elected on a platform of reforming the waterfront, it is not surprising that you would discuss reform of the waterfront with companies carrying on business on the waterfront, nor is it surprising that you would discuss it with members of the trade union movement. I repeat that it was our policy to reform the waterfront and it remains our policy to reform the waterfront. I was engaged in some discussions with players. Most of the discussions were engaged in by others, but they were acting under my general instruction to achieve waterfront reform, naturally on the basis that it had to occur in accordance with the laws of Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has asked whether leave will be given to table a document.Leave granted.Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs will remain silent. I warn him.48794879Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister explain to the House how and where the government's diversification strategy on trade is reaping rewards and benefiting Australia?4879Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Parkes for his question. I was pleased to visit Narromine and Dubbo recently with him and meet with a number of exporters. In fact, export trade creates jobs right here in Australia and, the better the market access, the more job activity that means for the Australian economy and the GDP results such as yesterday's. I further commend our exporters and highlight one of the bigger markets, the United States. For the first 10 months of this financial year, our exports to the USA are up 40 per cent. That includes meat exports, many of which have probably come through Roger Fletcher's operation at Dubbo, as well as transport equipment, but no wave piercing ferries are in that category. The reason that is so is because of the continuing application of the Jones Act by the USA, the largest economy in the world, which still has not repealed from the congressional statute books some legislation from the Civil War which blocks us from exporting high-tech ferries to the USA.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—And that's why you have got rid of Sharp.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I hear the interjection on the member for Hume. I take this opportunity to praise the member for Hume for his powerful contribution to the parliament over many years, and I wish him well.In respect of Italy, our exports are up 32 per cent. That involves a lot of textiles and also involves a lot of leather. I was pleased to go to Milano recently en route to Geneva to open the IWS European development centre. The Northern Italian economy centred on Milano is a very powerful market in its own right, especially with regard to the fashion industry. Turkey is a country where Australia has had enormous links, especially with the ANZAC tradition.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Where is the smile, John? Look at the smile. Guilty! Guilty!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—That includes hides, skins, transport equipment and, again, coal. In respect of the Netherlands, they are up 36 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison has been warned.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I know little things amuse little minds. But this increase again in the export of goods means more jobs here in Australia with coal, non-ferrous metals, dairy products and the like. The Netherlands is Australia's fourth largest investor and, of course, the trade relationship and the investment relationship is expanding nicely.There are just two other things I would say of interest to the House. I am please to be able to inform the House for the first time that the Taiwan Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Yuan, has just passed legislation this week formally lowering by 40 per cent the discriminatory tariff on Australian beef going from Australia to Taiwan. They are lowering it from NT$8 to NT$5 per kilo. This is about facilitating further our market access to Asia—in this case, Taiwan, our fourth largest market for beef exports currently worth over $80 million a year—and is a direct result of representations lodged by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson. Of course, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, the minister for primary industries and others, we are working to further facilitate beef exports, citrus exports and pork exports at this critical time.Finally, I will make the point that there are exporters large and small. Out there in Chester Hill, Sydney, is a small company called Woodland Home Products. It has some 45 staff manufacturing quality barbecues and heating products. Its Beefeater range won a coveted Australian Design Award in 1991 for its top of the line Signature product. I am very pleased to say that Woodland Home Products' Beefeater barbecues are now taking the United States market by storm and represent a further example of the diversification of the Australian export effort creating additional jobs here in Australia.48804880McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall consistently saying you had no knowledge or involvement, prior to December, of a plan which involved Patrick sacking its work force and replacing it with another? Minister, do you recall now jointly endorsing the cabinet submission, which you have just had a chance to read, with John Sharp on 7 July proposing just such a course of action? Haven't you been involved in the Patrick strategy for almost a year. Haven't you misled the Australian public?4880Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We have had a series of discussions with the major stevedores about what—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham! The question has been asked and the opposition will let the minister respond.WI4Mr REITH—to a circumstance of industrial action being taken by the MUA. It is amazing that the Labor Party opposition should find it surprising that we should see that as a responsibility that we had to protect the national interest.DT4CREANMr Crean—But you denied it!WI4Mr REITH—What I said in the parliament when I was asked about Dubai I repeat.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Guilty! Guilty!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent! The member for Burke!WI4Mr REITH—Their excitement only reflects their continuing embarrassment at their alignment with the MUA. Let me say, as to the plans of various parties—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hi, ho; hi,ho; it's off to gaol you go.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent!WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, various parties have had various plans to deal with industrial action and reform in the stevedoring industry for as long as anybody can remember. You ask the question: would a federal cabinet consider these issues?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent! The member for Cunningham!WI4Mr REITH—We would not be the first government to consider what you do with industrial action being taken by the MUA. You can go back to 1991—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question is about the document tabled.WI4Mr REITH—I am not evading anything. I am going to come to that in two minutes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—Let me just put this in perspective. You can go back to March 1991 and probably further back if you want to. Here is a quote from the Australian Financial Review of 21 March 1991—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: there was a specific question asked. The question, Mr Speaker, related to persistent claims by the minister that he had had no knowledge of plans to sack the entire Patrick's work force before December of last year. It then went on to identify a submission for which he was responsible in July of last year, detailing exactly that plan of action as a government strategy—not anyone else's. That is all there was to it. There was nothing else in that question—and he's irrelevant to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. The minister will address the questions canvassed.WI4Mr REITH—I certainly will, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—But, as I understand his response, the minister is in fact identifying discussions with the various players on the waterfront, and accordingly is within the standing orders.WI4Mr REITH—If it needs to be a long answer, then so be it, but this answer is relevant. The reason I say it is relevant is there have been plans and discussions as to how you deal with the industrial—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Answer the question.Mr Martin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! The member for Cunningham!DT4CREANMr Crean—Come to the point!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!WI4Mr REITH—I will come to the document that you tabled in a moment. But the point I make is that here it is, back in March 1991, facing concerns that the waterfront reform package was not performing as is expected.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—1991! We are talking about 1997!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It goes to relevance, Mr Speaker: this was a very specific question on a matter of accountability for a minister who has been telling people that December was when he knew it and it was other people's activity when we have a document there saying it was July and he was in it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He will not make a speech in raising a point of order. The minister is able to exercise some licence in the manner of his response. But I suggest you respond specifically to the question that is being canvassed.WI4Mr REITH—I will, Mr Speaker. I will complete the quote and then I want to move on.RH4KERRMr Kerr—A condemned man is allowed one final statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison!WI4Mr REITH—Senator Cook said:Cabinet considered a range of options which included using the armed services to man the wharves and Mr Kerin said, `If you want to really crash through on the waterfront there is a chance you might just end up where we were with the airline pilots—having to put the troops in.That is an interesting comment because I have made it clear to my department and anybody that I have spoken to that, as incoming government, we were prepared to use all the tools of government in exactly the same way as the Labor government dealt with the pilots strike.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect!WI4Mr REITH—That is certainly considered. That is certainly involved the canvassing of a whole lot of options.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is still responding within the ambit of the question. He can answer it in his own way. The members will remain silent. The member for Canberra seeks to raise a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: four minutes ago, the minister said that in two minutes he would respond to my question. I am asking you when he will.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—His answer has been going for three minutes and 14 seconds, so your timing is out.WI4Mr REITH—When we were elected I was told by my newly appointed ministerial colleague, the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, that he had been told that P&O had a plan that would, in the event of industrial action, see them sack them all and replace the existing work force with a new work force within a couple of weeks.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Now he is going, you can shaft Sharp.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—He can take the blame for you.WI4Mr REITH—It is not a matter of taking blame. If you want to take blame—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You wait! You wait!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Burke.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Sharp told me then that he was told by P&O that they had had that plan for some time; in fact, going back to when Labor was in office.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I have warned the member for Burke.WI4Mr REITH—So why don't we ask: what did Laurie Brereton know about plans of stevedores to deal with industrial action?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We seem to be debating the subject rather than answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order. If it is on relevance, I intend to ask the minister to address himself specifically in his reply and to answer the question.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hooray! Hear, hear!WI4Mr REITH—I then had other discussions on the circumstances of what you would do in the event of industrial action. For example, I was aware that P&O had a plan to import foreign workers who would be crane drivers in the event of industrial action. Would you consider that to be part of the conspiracy? Would you?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A point of order!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! When the members of the opposition are silent—at the moment you are not giving your own colleague a chance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order of relevance, the question directed specifically to the fact that he denied repeatedly any knowledge of a plan to sack the work force before December of last year and yet was actively engaged, as this document shows, from July. That is all we asked, Mr Speaker—nothing more.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will not repeat the question. The Leader of the Opposition will not engage in an argument.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On a point of order, I draw your attention to standing order 145 and the history of this parliament that records the longest answer to a question was 1,800 words given by the colleague of the present Leader of the Opposition—Mr Keating.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Sit down! Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! That is not a point of order. Resume your seat!8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Hunter. If you are going to keep yelling like that we will just wait until the House is silent before I ask the member for O'Connor to make his point of order. I could not hear what his point of order was, there was so much noise. Honourable member for O'Connor, at the moment that is not a point of order. What is your point of order?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The only restriction on a minister under these standing orders is 145—relevance. I make the point that ministers have to be given the opportunity when they are accused in this fashion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. He, too, will not argue the point. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance but I would point out to the House that the minister is being asked specifically about discussions which are very material in a case which seems to have attracted some public attention. Minister, I ask you to respond. WI4Mr REITH—The document goes on to say that a government role would be to `set the scene'—to use some of these words. Part of that setting the scene was the passage of the Workplace Relations Act. I can inform the House that in the discussions about the Workplace Relations Act with Senator Kernot—now a frontbench member of the Labor Party—we had discussions about industrial action on the Australian waterfront and the plans and options necessary to deal with it.Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is entirely relevant, but I ask him to resume his seat. Once again, the noise on my left is far too excessive.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order again goes to relevance, Mr Speaker: you know that the specific nature of the question went to his comments as of last December and his involvement directly from July.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is aware that ministers traditionally have ranged very widely in responding. I suggest that the Leader of the House does respond. I believe he is doing so.WI4Mr REITH—As Mr Sharp said this morning, during his period as a minister there were a lot of plans and options discussed with the government, and that should be hardly a surprise. The question that was put to me back in December was: was I aware of the Dubai operation?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—No, not the only question!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Not by a long shot!WI4Mr REITH—It was exactly the question that was put to me. The fact of the matter is, Mr Speaker, I was very surprised when I was asked that question. Furthermore, when I was asked that question after question time I went back to my office and I rang around the major stevedores to ask them if they were involved. My staff also rang some of the smaller stevedores to see whether or not any of those stevedoring operations were involved. I was told by the senior person at P&O—Mr Hein was away; I spoke to his deputy—that P&O were not involved. I spoke to Mr Corrigan about the issue and I was advised by him that he was not involved.That night, as the record shows, I did a doorstop and said publicly what I had been advised. The fact is, we did not know about it. That is the truth of the matter. We did not know about it. Were we aware of plans and options by the major stevedoring companies? Of course we were. I have said that on the public record.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh rubbish! You denied it!WI4Mr REITH—If you would only listen and notice. I have said that on a number of occasions.As to this cabinet document, as it purports to be, I have no reason to believe that it is not authentic. As I understand it, the document that was released yesterday—you have not asked me about that; I await your question—and I believe this document, although I have not had it checked, were with a number of documents in the possession of a member of Mr Sharp's staff. When he resigned his ministerial position, he made arrangements for all the documents to go across to the department. Last night, when I was shown the Webster minute—which was the first time I had seen it—I asked my department—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Are you sure it didn't come from Costello's office?WI4Mr REITH—I am giving you an explanation. As I was saying, last night, when I was shown the Webster note to John Sharp dated 21 September, I asked the department had they seen that document before. Apparently, they had. They said it was one of a number of documents that had gone across to the department at the time John Sharp resigned as minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest that the Leader of the House bring his answer to a conclusion.WI4Mr REITH—To conclude, Mr Speaker, as far as this document is concerned, it simply notes the fact that we have an activist approach to waterfront reform, which we have said publicly. We make no apologies for it. We were elected to take an activist approach to fixing up the waterfront. We are proud of the fact that we have done so.My last remark is this. One of the parties close to this dispute relayed this anecdote to me this morning. They said that back in 1997 most people in the business community said that their worry about us was that, if ever there was a waterfront dispute, we would be the first to cave in. And they said what has now been shown is that the reality is this government is prepared to stick, and I tell you what, we are.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I point out to ministers that we are spending an inordinate amount of time on our answers today. Would you keep our answers somewhat shorter.48844884Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House what measures the government has implemented to help re-establish the town of Katherine and its districts following the devastating floods earlier this year?4884Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Most people in the House, and indeed in Australia, were dismayed to see the terrible floods in the Katherine region in January 1998. The House will recall that the Prime Minister, together with his wife, visited the Katherine region in response and on 5 February 1998, in a joint press release with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, he announced the Katherine regional development program and the establishment of the Katherine and district business re-establishment trust fund.The Australian Defence Force was active in the alleviation of the situation in Katherine. They had up to 1,000 people involved in the movement of people, rescue, protection and the clean-up of the town, and we all give our thanks to them for that fine work.The Katherine and district re-establishment trust fund has tax deductibility; that is, donations to that trust fund are tax deductible. From that fund, $10,000 grants are being paid to businesses to re-establish, to primary produces and to other eligible businesses that were devastated by floods.The member for the Northern Territory raised with me earlier on this week the question of whether or not those grants would be taxable. I sought advice from the Australian Taxation Office in response to his request and the advice which I received was that the $10,000 grants out of the trust would be taxable under existing law. I pay tribute to the hard work of the member for the Northern Territory and to the representations he has made to me on this issue. If it had not been for the representations and the work that the member for the Northern Territory has made, I would not be able to now announce that the government will be amending the legislation to ensure that $10,000 grants from the trust for the re-establishment of businesses in Katherine will not be assessable for taxation.The government feels, after listening carefully to the representations which were made by the member for the Northern Territory, that it is only right that sums out of that trust fund do go wholly and totally for the re-establishment of businesses in the flood affected area. The government wants to underscore the importance that we attach to it. On behalf of the government, I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his work on this issue.48854885Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and is in three parts. Firstly, is the Attorney-General aware of claims that the pornography industry in the Australian Capital Territory has been infiltrated by United States organised crime figures? Secondly, when is the government going to do something effective to stop Australia's national capital from being turned into the porn capital of Asia? Finally, why will the government not act to prevent the distribution of videos such as the inappropriately X-rated Boys for Sale ?4885Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—In respect of the first question, no, I have not heard any such claims, but, if the member is aware of tangible evidence which supports that, I would obviously be interested in hearing it. As to the second, I cannot comment on the classification of a particular video but, as the member would well know, the classification of films, videos, literature, computer games and the like is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classification's Classification Board, and is subject to review by the Classification Review Board.That body operates under guidelines which are set up under cooperative Commonwealth and state legislation. The guidelines are subject to the approval of each of the governments that participate. On that basis I can only assume that the video to which he refers has been through that system. It has been categorised as an `X' category video. It would be subject to appeal if an appropriate person thought it was inappropriately classified. I am not aware, obviously, of the particular video or of whether any appeal has been brought.48854885Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, has government policy included an activist approach to waterfront reform and has the Howard government implemented this policy?4885Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for his excellent question. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the government has certainly had an activist approach to waterfront reform. In fact, we were elected to have an activist or interventionist approach. Australia had been waiting 13 years for a government that was prepared to take an approach which would encourage genuine reform on the Australian waterfront. We were encouraged to do so by a number of reports on the public record, for example the Bureau of Industry Economics report, I think back in 1995. Some us were encouraged, going all the way back to 1989, when we saw the Labor Party fail to implement the recommendations of the interstate commission. We were encouraged during the early 1990s, when even the Labor Party itself was publicly saying that the progress of waterfront reform was inadequate.We were encouraged by a recent Bureau of Transport, Communications and Economics study which stated that conservative estimates of economic benefit arising from waterfront reform were that it would amount to $1.24 billion annually and 4,350 additional jobs. The public would be surprised if this government was not prepared to actively promote a policy that would create over $1 billion worth of addition to GDP and literally thousands of jobs. Even in that work the advice to the government was that it did not take into account the benefits of a more reliable service. As we have seen on so many occasions, it is the lack of reliability on the Australian waterfront which has undermined the commercial prospects of literally thousands of Australian businesses.It is no surprise that, when the government undertook some internal work on the question of an approach that we would take, a study to the government concluded that `the activist approach is the only strategy which holds out the prospect of achieving the proposed objectives.' Why wouldn't that be surprising? The previous government had done nothing. Unless the government of the day was clearly prepared to politically take a leadership role with respect to the waterfront, quite frankly you would have seen absolutely no reform. That is the fact of the matter. For many years one of the features of this industry has been a high level of government involvement. In a situation which characterised this industry, unless the government was prepared to say unequivocally that it would support reform then it was certainly always our view that reform would not be achieved.What was the government's policy approach? It was to set the scene to facilitate the changes that the stevedores and others want to make and to give them the political and regulatory tools to get their businesses working again as quickly as possible in the event of industrial action. You say this is a great document. Surprise, surprise! I am very pleased you have tabled it.DT4CREANMr Crean—Table the lot!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!DT4CREANMr Crean—Where are the rest? Table them all!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—The position as far as documents are concerned is that I have been talking to our legal people and saying: `I would like to get some of these documents out.' Do you know what they say to me? They say: `You have to get these documents out in accordance with the court processes.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You were not going to table Cabinet documents.DT4CREANMr Crean—Table them all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hotham!WI4Mr REITH—What this document reveals is that the government was preparing and had a plan to be activist in respect of waterfront reform. Some of the tasks that we set would include close cooperation with waterfront industry employers to assist them to develop and implement strategies for overcoming a strike and maintain the flow of trade. Why would you object to that? Why would anybody in their right mind object to a government taking that position? It was exactly that position you took in the pilots' strike. Was that a conspiracy? Is that the confession we are going to get from you today? No, of course not, because it doesn't suit your political circumstances and you hate to be reminded of the fact that you were the ones who put the military into the pilots' dispute.We had a task force which was to identify government actions necessary to assist employers in the run-up to and during a dispute, which would include legal assistance. Is that a revelation? We give legal advice to people virtually on a daily basis. So what! That is a responsibility we have—Mr Dargavel interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fraser!WI4Mr REITH—particularly as we have introduced new laws, including the `Cheryl' clauses, which we think people ought to know about and ought to use if they need them. Issues would include access to pilots and tugs. If the country is being brought to a standstill, why wouldn't the government of the day be concerned to know where pilots and tugs would be available?DT4CREANMr Crean—And look what you did! Balaclavas! Dogs!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Look how you treated them!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!WI4Mr REITH—Okay. You want me to go back to physical security?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Physical security!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks.WI4Mr REITH—Why wouldn't the government be concerned about physical security for people involved in the waterfront dispute? People should never forget that within the MUA are the painters and dockers. The painters and dockers are well-known for their long history of violence and intimidation. I hesitate now to be selective. Going to the third point, `development of government strategy and tactics, including the disposal of ANL and the implementation of other maritime reform issues', why wouldn't the government have a task force on those issues; something you were never able to do?DT4CREANMr Crean—Because you said there wasn't one!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham.WI4Mr REITH—That is your embarrassment. `Managing public and business opinion'. Is this a secret strategy that the coalition had—to manage public and business opinion? `Coordination of political information and effort.' Oh, yes. This was a secret plan, that the government would want to manage political information and effort. Lastly, `consultation with business leaders to gain their support and confidence'. Why wouldn't we? It was about time we had a government that was prepared to tackle this issue.48874887Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, as quoted by the minister, according to the cabinet document dated 7 July 1998:The government's role will be to `set the scene', to facilitate changes that the stevedore(s) and others wish to make and to give them the political and regulatory tools (they need)—and to achieve this:a small team has been assembled—whose tasks include managing public opinion and assisting employers with physical security and organising visas?4887Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The document says what it says. I have not had a chance to read it since I was asked the question but I will show uncharacteristic charity towards the member for Melbourne and accept that he may have read it out accurately. I do not find that remark the least bit surprising or the least bit embarrassing. If he is referring to visas in relation to the waterfront that arose in another context, I refer him to the answer that was given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I think some weeks ago in this House, which very comprehensively dealt with that matter.48874887Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister advise the House of the government's response to the report released yesterday on a national diabetes strategy and implementation plan for Australia? What is the government doing to address this major health problem?4887Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question and for her support in this area. Yesterday I released the National Diabetes Strategy and Implementation Plan . It has been over two years in coming and it is the first time in this country that we got all key stakeholders in diabetes together to look at one of the country's biggest health problems and to come to a consensus. I was hoping it would be out earlier. It proved to be a much harder task than I first imagined, but we have managed to achieve it and for the first time we have a consensus on a way to deal with this very important illness in Australia.There are something like 750,000 people with diabetes in Australia. Half of them do not know that they have it. The complications of diabetes are nasty: loss of vision, kidney failure, loss of limb and heart disease. But there is a great message of hope because diabetes and its complications can be prevented.The honourable member asked about the government's response to it and I am pleased to announce that, yesterday, we announced $6.2 million worth of funding for projects specifically in response to the national strategy report. I hope that this will not be the end of it. I hope in the future that people in state, territory and Commonwealth governments working together through the structure I have set up will be able to do much more. Briefly, there are four areas in particular that I find very exciting and that I think give great hope for people with diabetes.The first is that we are going to run, through the auspices of Diabetes Australia, a very substantial community awareness campaign because one of the biggest problems is that half the people with diabetes in Australia do not know that they have it. If they do not know they have it, they cannot get proper treatment and we cannot prevent the complications.The second thing is that studies in Sweden have shown that almost half the blindness due to diabetes can be prevented. There are 44,000 people, as of today, whose sight is in imminent danger from diabetes and the prospect of preventing half that blindness is something that any health minister should be very excited about.The third thing we are doing is establishing a national diabetes register. We have never had that in Australia. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is going to auspice this register, which will put all new cases of insulin dependent diabetes on the register. It will be for the very long term; it should still be operating in 50 years time. It will give us a capacity with research that we have never been able to have before; it is something we have only been able to dream of.Finally, there is a particular problem with diabetes in the Asian, particularly South-East Asian, communities. In my home town of Melbourne, one in every three cases of gestational diabetes in a hospital is of a Chinese or a Vietnamese woman. The Chinese and Vietnamese communities have very high rates of gestational diabetes. Two-thirds of these women go on to develop diabetes in later life. There is not a single Chinese endocrinologist in Australia and there are very few Chinese or Chinese speaking diabetes educators. So we are working with the Australian Chinese Medical Association and the Australian Chinese Health Foundation to try to look at the causes and prevention. In the end, a lot of what I do as health minister is about treating illness once it happens. This is a great message of hope for people with diabetes that we are going to try to prevent illness as well.48884888Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall saying on the Today show on 29 January:All we have done is to change the law to allow . . . new stevedores to come into the business . . . and as far as I am concerned . . . they will have the full support and understanding of my government.Can the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the 7 July cabinet document:There are no signs that any substantial new stevedores will emerge to break the unions' monopoly supply of labour. The only prospective new operator, OOCL . . . has done a deal with the MUA.Does this not show that, as far as you are concerned, achieving an efficient waterfront runs a very distant second to your ultimate goal of destroying the Martime Union of Australia?4888Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That is a commentary rather than a question but I will still be very happy to answer. Of course I recall saying that and I made that remark in the context of the very welcome intervention into the stevedoring business of the farmers. I congratulate the National Farmers Federation on the courage, foresight and tenacity that the National Farmers Federation displayed in getting involved in this matter.While we are talking about work forces, I want to take a moment, as this is a very general question, to thank and congratulate the non-union staff of the farmers stevedoring group who had the courage to work on the waterfront after 7 April, because those particular men and women were subjected to an enormous amount of intimidation and abuse.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!ZD4Mr HOWARD—And if ever—Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They were not only subjected to intimidation and abuse by members of the Maritime Union of Australia but insulted and reviled by members of the Australian Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was a very specific question—ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I am giving a very specific answer.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—relating to the position of the government as far as OOCL was concerned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have to make a speech on it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Prime Minister is way off the mark as far as that is concerned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—To the specific question as to whether I recall an interview I gave on the Today show, yes, I do recall it. I spoke then against the background of what the farmers had done. Today I speak in praise of what the farmers did in this dispute and I speak in praise of what their employees did. I thank them for the courage that they displayed in trying to involve themselves—5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Scabs.ZD4Mr HOWARD—My friend, the member for Charlton, mutters the normal Labor mantra of `scab'.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—That is what they are—scabs.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Apparently you are a scab and you are entitled to be described as the member for Charlton described them in his infamous adjournment speech.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—They are scabs, and they always will be scabs.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I rather like the member for Charlton, as he knows, but I am very sorry that he used such vile, unforgiving, hateful language about his fellow Australians. That is basically what this kind of dispute generates. You have this visceral tribal hatred of anybody who wants to work without belonging to a union.This issue is about one thing and one thing alone, and that is the determination of the Maritime Union of Australia to maintain a monopoly on the Australian waterfront. That is what it is about. If there were no MUA monopoly, we would have had higher productivity levels. If there had been higher productivity levels and there had been no MUA monopoly, it would not have been necessary for a newly elected coalition government to embark upon an activist reform strategy.I say again on behalf of the government: I make no apology at all for the activist strategy we followed because that strategy was designed to boost the productivity of the Australian waterfront. It was against the background of years and years of rorts. It was against the background of years and years of low productivity. It was against the background of the former government having spent $425 million for no measurable improvement in productivity. It was against the background of people who had wanted to remain out of the trade union being physically bullied and mentally intimidated into joining the MUA.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Voluntary unionism!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Voluntary unionism was a myth on the Australian waterfront. The reality was that, unless you agreed to belong to a union, you did not last on the Australian waterfront.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Yes, and in the coalmines too.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, that is right. You nod and you think it is right, and by your nodded assent you validate the very argument that we have been using. When the chips were down on this issue, you in the Australian Labor Party lined up with the rorters, you lined up with the thugs who wanted compulsory unionism, you lined up with the men and women on the Australian waterfront who wanted to preserve the stranglehold.I will ever remain proud of the fact that my government, with the help of the National Farmers Federation, was determined to bring about reform in accordance with the laws of Australia. But reform we were determined to bring about, because we believe it is in the long-term interests of the Australian community to have a reformed and more competitive Australian waterfront.48904890Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House—ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—This is outrageous!KV5Mr NEVILLE—How can you say it is outrageous? I have not got it out yet.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—Three questions in a week, Paul!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest the honourable member for Hinkler might address his question.KV5Mr NEVILLE—Can the minister inform the House of the progress in the field of new apprenticeships? Furthermore, what opportunities are there for indigenous Australians in education and training?4890Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. I acknowledge the fact that he has been a tremendous supporter of young apprentices in his electorate and has been very active in that regard. The government's aim has been to put in place a range of practical policies to assist particularly the 70 per cent of young people who are not going directly from school to university—the young people neglected by Labor.I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that there have been record numbers of new traineeships over the year to 1 June. Some 49,320 young Australians have entered these new traineeships—14 per cent up on last year. One of the most encouraging features of these figures is that a very significant number of these new apprenticeships have gone to indigenous young people. I think one of the most tragic failures of the previous Labor government was that it did nothing in this area to assist indigenous Australians gain the opportunities that they wanted. It was not interested in results; it was interested in throwing money at programs which did not work. There has been a record number of 5,000 traineeship commencements for indigenous Australians in the year up to the end of May. These figures exceed last year's record levels. It is worth comparing this with Labor's last year, 1995, when there were only 1,321 indigenous trainees.This government is taking practical measures to help indigenous Australians. We are interested in results. I had the great pleasure two weeks ago to be present at a graduation ceremony at Notre Dame University in Broome where 27 indigenous students graduated with certificates for teaching from their diploma courses. Many of these indigenous Australians were from remote communities. While in Broome, I also had the great satisfaction of meeting with representatives from the Aboriginal Independent Communities Schools—people who have been empowered by educational choice—who spoke to me with enormous pride about the progress that they are making in remote communities to assist their students.In recent months the government has announced $35 million for a range of practical measures to help young indigenous Australians get educational opportunities, including school buses to bring students to school, houses to attract teachers and projects to reinforce literacy outcomes.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Table the speech!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You are not interested in it.BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition is not interested because he is covering up 13 years of failure and humbug in this area and this government has put in place practical measures. The failure of the Leader of the Opposition unfortunately gave many Australians the impression that nothing was being achieved in this area. What I am showing is that we are achieving practical results. The member for Oxley apparently believes that nothing practical has been achieved.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Where is she? Where is she?BT4Dr KEMP—Where is she? She is not here again; another absence from the House. She is not interested in these important national issues and she apparently does not support these special measures to help indigenous Australians.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Well, don't give her your preferences!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will remain silent.BT4Dr KEMP—Indigenous Australians have equal rights with every other Australian to human dignity and to the right to opportunities in this society. This government has been prepared, by its focus on results, by its action, by its positive policies, to give indigenous Australians the opportunities that they were denied for 13 years and to put in place policies that will work.Our message to the Australian people is this: that while there has been waste in the past under the previous government, with a focus on results—empowering indigenous Australians who want to take charge of their own lives and their own opportunities—results can be achieved and we will work with them to achieve those results in a united Australian community.48914891McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that the waterfront strategy which you discussed in early July 1997 involved `significant public expenditure'? Can you confirm that the discussion included a proposal for `the formation of a Cabinet sub-committee of Messrs Reith, Sharp, Fahey and Costello to authorise the necessary expenditures to achieve the Government's waterfront reform objectives'? Prime Minister, was that committee established and, if so, what expenditures on the waterfront has it approved?4891Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—This confirms what I have been saying all day, and that is that my government was determined to reform the Australian waterfront. It was a whole of government commitment and, as I gaze upon my cabinet colleagues and think of the numerous discussions we had about this issue, I cannot think of an issue where there was a more united determination to achieve an objective that was good for Australia than this one. Of course we authorised whatever was necessary. Of course, we did! Can I say that the policy of the government was to achieve reform of the Australian waterfront, and the policy was to talk to, to listen to, and to discuss issues with players, and of course to provide whatever assistance was appropriate—always consistent with the laws of Australia.48914891Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. A number of young veterans in my electorate of Paterson have approached me seeking assistance to obtain civilian employment. Minister, what hope does the government provide for veterans in this situation and to others who may be experiencing difficulties continuing in their current employment?4891Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I want to acknowledge the member for Paterson and the tireless work that he does for his veterans community in the seat of Paterson.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He is Paterson's curse!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has been warned. I suggest he remain silent.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I want to assure all members of this House that the government does provide assistance to those who have seen service for their country and who have had difficulty finding civilian employment or who are having difficulty remaining in employment. The government recognises the unique nature of the training of those who have served this country, particularly those who have served in a war zone, and the effect it does have on many of these people, both psychologically and physically. Through my department, we have introduced a vocational rehabilitation scheme and I want to reassure all members of the House—and the member for Paterson I know is most interested in this, because he has a very large population of veterans in his own community, particularly Vietnam veterans; I think there are over 270 Vietnam veterans currently receiving assist ance in his electorate from my department—that this scheme is entirely voluntary. It is not going to be forced on any veteran and I want to reassure members of the House of that point.What those veterans get is a personally tailored rehabilitation service to assist them either to remain in work or to find work in the civilian work force. The assistance is in the form of professional advice to make sure that they are getting the right advice to remain in that work, but also, importantly, if they have had trouble—particularly those younger veterans with entitlements—they know that when they are on this scheme those entitlements are legislated and will not be taken away from them. I think that has been a major barrier for many younger veterans who feel that the entitlements that they have, should they enter the work force, may be revisited by my department. Let me assure them and members of this House that those entitlements will not be taken away while they are on this rehabilitation scheme. They are entitlements that they are entitled to while they under this scheme.The scheme has been running for about six months now. Whilst the numbers who have been through the process and are actually now in work are only modest, there are many more coming forward. And that is very encouraging. It does deserve the support of all members of the parliament.Because of the level of interest in the scheme coming from the younger veterans particularly, we now will be contracting that service out through the Commonwealth rehabilitation scheme. That means it will be able to bring professional advice and professional services to veterans right across Australia.I just want to say to those veterans who choose to take up this scheme because they see a need to seek that professional advice that they will be able to get it. It is not compulsory. I am certainly looking forward to being in the electorate of the member for Paterson next week where I know this will be a subject that will be dear to many of his constituents' hearts.48924892Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 7 July waterfront strategy cabinet paper recommended that he meet with the CEOs of P&O, who were resisting his strategy and Patrick—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—How do you know that?4G4DOWNERMr Downer—How do you know?PE4Mr BEAZLEY—It says it in your document—`to convey the government's intentions to pursue the activist strategy outlined in the cabinet paper'? Prime Minister, three weeks before Stephen Webster was given `a special job for Mr Howard', five months before Dubai, six months before Webb Dock and nine months before the Patrick sackings, were you given your own special job—namely, to lean on P&O and give Chris Corrigan the green light for industrial aggression?4892Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—This is an interesting theory.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Didn't you get the question right? You should have let Hotham ask it. Kim, you got it wrong; he should have asked it.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest to members of the House on both sides that we resume some silence so that we can all hear the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The situation is this simply this: that naturally, as Prime Minister and somebody who is interested in waterfront reform, I met the chief executive of the stevedoring company—and do not hold me to this; I will have to check my records; I think I had a discussion with Lord Sterling, who is the Chairman of P&O, when I was in London in the middle of last year—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Was that on the way to the test match?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have had a number of meetings with Mr Hine. From recollection—8I4MARTINMr Martin—At the test match?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I had one meeting with Mr Corrigan; I would have met him in a social environment on one or two occasions.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh yes, that is very conspiratorial. It is well known that the federal politician that Mr Corrigan has had the closest association with over the years in this place is Paul Keating. I may well have met—and I would have to check my diaries—other representatives of stevedoring companies, as I have met representatives of the trade union movement. So what? It would be a very strange Prime Minister who did not meet the chief executives of large companies; the fact that he meets them hardly represents a conspiracy. I remain defiantly proud of what my government has done to achieve reform of the Australian waterfront. I believe that it was being pursued in the interests of the Australian community.48934893Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of any research which further supports the need for reform of Australia's waterfront? Minister, if so, what is the government's response to this research?4893Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for the question.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You will be doing a paper on prison reform soon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman.WI4Mr REITH—There has been a very interesting survey put out by the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry this week on—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What about prison reform?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—port reform. What it demonstrates graphically is that there is very wide support—majority support, in fact—for waterfront reform amongst the users of the Australian ports. These are the people who know what it is like. They know what the rorts are like; they are sick of the rorts. They know what the problems of lack of reliability are. It is further evidence of the need for reform, but it is also welcome evidence of the support for reform. As David Edwards, who runs VECCI, says:The survey found that nearly three-quarters of port users at the Port of Melbourne supported moves to introduce greater competition to stevedoring services such as that initiated by the National Farmers Federation.It was then said:The clear message is that the majority of port users want, need and support waterfront reform, and will continue to do so should the current dispute escalate. Port users are conscious that continuing unrest will cost them money. However, the survey shows that most are prepared to weather these costs in order to realise longer term benefits.My message for all those people who signed up to that proposition is that this government is prepared to stick at this issue to see genuine waterfront reform.I just want to conclude on this: it is also my view that it is not just the users of the waterfront who support reform; I actually think there are a lot of rank and file MUA members who also believe that it is time that some of these issues were addressed. I have absolutely no doubt that there are very large numbers of rank and file MUA members who would like to take what is a very generous redundancy package. I am told that, when Mick O'Leary went down to East Swanston dock the other day, he got up in front of the crowd and he said, `It's finally time, guys; we're going have to undertake real reform.' And he went through the things that would be needed to be implemented for real reform on the waterfront, like contracting out—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—But that is not what happened.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.WI4Mr REITH—I was not there. You get your own version and table it.DT4CREANMr Crean—That is why no one believes you. WI4Mr REITH—The report came back that he went through the various reforms that would need to be undertaken and, basically, there was no response—that people were effectively, as it was reported to me, acquiescing in it. The only thing in which they really disagreed with the union was when Mick said to the assembled rank and file that there would have to be a limit on the number who could take redundancies. Do you know why they are complaining about that? Because a lot of them would like to take what is an extremely generous redundancy package, as has been clearly outlined by the Productivity Commission.All of those employees, according to the MUA, are creditors of those labour hire companies. As such, they are entitled to speak to the administrators. Grant Thornton are the independent administrators. As creditors, therefore, they are entitled to ring up Grant Thornton and seek from Grant Thornton a statement of their entitlements. They can do so, I am informed, on a confidential basis. They can similarly ring up MIFCo, which the government has established, and a month or so ago we established a hotline; the number is 1300 363 472.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Will you repeat that?WI4Mr REITH—I will, Prime Minister: 1300 363 472. Grant Thornton's telephone number is 02 92846666, and they can ring and get an impartial and confidential statement of their entitlements.I have absolutely no doubt that a lot of those blokes would like to take what is a very fair package. I believe it is time that the union allowed the rank and file to have a say on this issue, instead of being more concerned, as the union is, to hold people into the MUA so that it can hang onto its monopoly position. That is the real agenda. It always has been on this issue. We are prepared, as we have always said, to see people receive a fair redundancy, but it has to be in the context of the genuine reform that we really need on the Australian waterfront.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . I might let the House know that I will see that those telephone numbers go on the government's web site.Censure Motion4894489415:37:004894Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek leave to move:That this House censures the Prime Minister:(1) for his involvement in, knowledge of, and ultimate responsibility for, the Government's belligerent waterfront strategy, which has been shown to have been based upon an aggressive approach involving stevedores dismissing their employees and rehiring new workers under different arrangements;(2) for his authorisation of secret planning by the Government and certain commercial parties to give effect to the belligerent waterfront strategy;(3) for his evasive denials of the existence of such planning; and(4) for his culpability for the consequences of the Government's aggressive strategy which has seen, inter alia, potentially illegal actions in contravention of the Workplace Relations Act, and the potential exposure of the Commonwealth, and all taxpayers, to substantial damages.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, we are not going to grant leave. You can move your suspension, you can have two speakers and I will respond.4894Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Dear me, what a cover-up! I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith:That this House censures the Prime Minister:(1) for his involvement in, knowledge of, and ultimate responsibility for, the Government's belligerent waterfront strategy, which has been shown to have been based upon an aggressive approach involving stevedores dismissing their employees and rehiring new workers under different arrangements;(2) for his authorisation of secret planning by the Government and certain commercial parties to give effect to the belligerent waterfront strategy;(3) for his evasive denials of the existence of such planning; and (4) for his culpability for the consequences of the Government's aggressive strategy which has seen, inter alia, potentially illegal actions in contravention of the Workplace Relations Act, and the potential exposure of the Commonwealth, and all taxpayers, to substantial damages.What a cop-out! We have a cabinet document which shows a web of deceit by this government around these issues, which conclusively proves it, and they will not take the censure motion. It is not as though this is not a matter of substantial public concern. It is not as though this is a matter on which they have failed to comment before. It is not as though this is a matter of which they have no knowledge. They have had the capacity now to study their own document, but of course they knew it was there all along.It was the view of a chap named Thomas Cromwell, the secretary for Henry VIII, who said the following:I cannot do anything with oral discourse between peoples, but give me a man's signature on the bottom of a document, any document, and I will hang him.That was the view of Thomas Cromwell. Well, you have the signatures, Mr Speaker—two of them. Since that point of time, conspirators have usually been a little more circumspect. But two of them managed to sign this document and submit it to the rest of them and have the rest of them named in different ways in the course of it. They were Peter Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, and John Sharp, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development.What do we find in this document? Do we find in this document evidence that would support this particular conclusion? Mr Reith on 8 May 1998 comments:As to what decisions they have taken—they happen to be Patrick's—the fact of the matter is we were not aware of any decision taken by Mr Corrigan to replace his work force.That is what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business had to say about that particular matter. Then a few weeks later this particular document was submitted to the cabinet for consideration. When asked whether or not they had any plans, he said, `Governments always have plans, but I do not want you to see any of those plans in a belligerent context. We would never want to crush a union.'Read this document, Mr Speaker, when you go through it. This document is a document of frustration—not with the union so much as with the attitudes of the stevedoring companies. Every bit of activity that they undertook with the union was a lie conducted in bad faith. Every effort made by the union to hold sensible discussions with them took place after and against the background of the existence of this document. No wonder the unions found it pretty darn hard to come to any conclusions either with Patrick's after this document was down or with you. No wonder they found it particularly difficult.The agenda here was the destruction of the MUA. If a company did not agree with this particular proposition, it was not regarded as part of any competitive arrangement. If a company, knowing that this was to occur, said, `No, we would prefer to conduct negotiations,' they were to be lent upon in a systematic way. What this document reveals is this:We have now consulted extensively with the two major stevedores. Patrick's favours the activist approach while P&O do not.Then he goes on, as we revealed in our discussions:The only prospective new operator, OOCL, in Melbourne or Sydney has done a deal with the MUA.Therefore, it is not a matter of interest. I suppose Sealand was not a matter of interest either, even though Sealand happened to be achieving all the particular targets that were being set by the government at the time. No, we could not have them in competition. Why? Because they were prepared to make an arrangement with the MUA as far as that was concerned. So Sealand is out, as is OOCL—`We are not interested in them. We are interested in one thing only: we are interested in breaking a union.'What this document goes through is a systematic, deliberate campaign involving all sections of the government, placing the taxpayers' resources at risk, to go down the course of frustrating the actual terms of the Workplace Relations Act, which says that you may not be sacked simply because you choose to be a member of a union. This is a document of conspiracy to sack particular employees for one reason and one reason only: they were not prepared to leave their union.That is what this document is all about. It is not a matter of vagueness; it is not a matter of a little bit of social chitchat between the manager of Patrick's and the Prime Minister or any other ministers; it is not a matter of `There have always been offhand discussions every now and then. Every now and then we sit down over a port and we have a bit of a discussion about sacking all the workers and how good it would be.' These plans have existed for ever and ever—read this particular document. Members of the public will now have an opportunity to read this particular document. It says, `Some have arrived at a different conclusion to this, but they are wrong. We intend to go down a systematic and deliberate path. We intend to set the scene—that is our first task.' We now understand what the minister was going on about with all that misleading about activity on the waterfront: it was all part of the setting of the scene.The document then goes on to work out how to fund all of this. They have not reported to the parliament or anyone else—a special committee set up to fund all of this activity. The document then goes to proposals to lean on the stevedoring companies to make sure they conform. There is not some sort of vagueness—`We are just following on; we are just being led by the nose by all the stevedoring companies.' This document says, ` We are going to put the arm on them to make absolutely certain they deliver what it is that we particularly want from them.'Ironically, in question time today, the minister actually revealed one of his particular concerns about this when he said, `We are going to cooperate with the discovery of documents process associated with a conspiracy action, but we have a few exceptions like the necessity to retain confidential cabinet documents. We are going to do that.' And well they might. Well they might be wishing to curtail any capacity for anyone else to have a look at these documents, because recollect, Mr Speaker, what the High Court had to say on this matter and recollect the fact that the taxpayers' money is being put at risk by these illegal actions of the government. The High Court said:. . . all parties to a conspiracy . . . are liable as concurrent tortfeasors. . . . it is only necessary for one of the conspirators to have performed the act . . . for an action to lie against all. If damages are recovered, each is liable for the whole amount.With that hanging over you from the High Court, you would not want a document like this out there in the public domain. You would not like a document like this around for a bit of consideration by the odd judge here and there. You would not want a document like this going around when you are still trying to pretend, with that last fig leaf stripped away, that you know nothing, that you were just led along by everybody else, that you did not have a plan, that you were just rolling with the punches, going with the flow, turning up when the occasion demanded and saying, `Oh dear, Patrick's have really got no other alternative but to go down this track. We will just go along with it. As far as we are concerned, we are just fine.'The Prime Minister has scarpered out of here, ducking a censure motion on a serious matter. Minister, the fact of the matter is that you are caught red-handed by this document with a strategy which you concealed from the Australian people. It was not a strategy of concealment by omission; it was a strategy of concealment by commission. You were asked questions about this sort of activity; you pooh-poohed it. You effectively described as paranoid people out there who believed these sorts of documents and these sorts of plans existed. That is what you were on about at that point in time.Not a single person in this country believes you, Minister, on this matter any more. Your own polling tells you that not a single person in this country believes you as far as these matters are concerned. And, when you look at this, why should they? Why should anybody accept your credibility? Why should anybody accept your good faith? Why should any taxpayer have to pay anything that you are liable for as a result of the course of action you have pursued? The Liberal Party has been concealing donations for a while. The Liberal Party ought to be paying for this particular outcome, not anybody else, because this has been a conspiracy organised by the Liberal Party for their political purposes and no reason at all other than that. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he actually moved a motion to suspend standing orders, not a wider motion, but in the circumstances I have allowed him to proceed. Is the motion seconded?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.NaN:00:004897Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I wish to respond.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Guilty!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. To those who I have warned before, that warning remains—the member for Canberra included.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This suspension motion does not deserve support. This suspension motion which is moved to pave the way for a censure motion is so moved for a substantive motion which is not justified. Therefore, we reject the suspension motion.There is absolutely no demonstration, as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), of deceit whatsoever in this document. I totally repudiate it. It is a nonsense claim and deserves complete and total repudiation. Any reasonable observer would accept the simple proposition that this government was elected to promote waterfront reform. Obviously, as a government, we considered and canvassed all of the issues necessary to achieve that outcome. Why would anybody be surprised at that?There has been reference to funds being expended. Subject to further advice, basically the funds were expended on obtaining reports. We obtained reports which gave us advice on legal matters, we obtained reports which referred to safety in the industry—such as the Easson report, which was publicly released—and we got a report on remuneration levels which was published.RH4KERRMr Kerr—All the framework for setting the conspiracy up. All the underpinnings of the conspiracy.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Why did we get a report on remuneration which the interjector says is evidence of a conspiracy? Because we think people are entitled to know of the high levels of remuneration. That document was released, and that was part of our campaign to advocate reform. Why is that a conspiracy? Quite frankly, if that is a conspiracy, we have been advocating one for 10 or 15 years. What a ridiculous proposition!Of course we were looking at what you would do in the event of industrial action. Why would we not do so? Industrial action when Labor was in power was a common feature, when the MUA put pressure on a Labor government, and on a number of occasions as a result they caved in. I suppose the most graphic, most recent, example of that occurred in 1995 when the Leader of the Opposition, as responsible minister, had a public policy to sell ANL and he was forced to cave in to the MUA because they ran a week-long industrial campaign against you.Would we as an incoming government have been prepared to accept industrial action closing Australian ports? No way known. Therefore, what was our responsibility? Our responsibility was that in the event of industrial action we had taken any necessary precautions that we could take to ensure that the Australian port system was open as soon as possible after the conduct of industrial action. Is that the act of an irresponsible government? No, it is the act of a government which has a national responsibility to keep the ports open against the threat to the national interest by a union that for far too long has held this country to economic ransom for its own selfish needs, with the support of a Labor government.You talk about conspiracy! The great conspiracy in this country for years and years has been the fact that Labor governments, with the MUA, have run a closed shop. You talk about illegal activity. There is no more illegal activity than coercing people to be in a union and running a closed shop on the Australian waterfront. The disgrace, the impudence of you people to come in here and talk to us about illegal acts. It is your public policy to allow for compulsory unionism on the Australian waterfront. It is also your public policy to remove the secondary boycott provisions which would allow this union to hold this country to economic ransom. What a cheek you have got even moving this suspension motion!This document demonstrates that we were opposed to the union's monopoly over the supply of labour on the Australian waterfront. Why would anyone be surprised about that? We have been campaigning against the MUA's monopoly control over the supply of labour on the waterfront for as long as I can remember. I could take you all the way back to 1989 when I was the shadow minister for industrial relations and I publicly advocated that there ought to be a break of the monopoly control of the MUA. If that is a conspiracy, I have been publicly advocating a conspiracy for nearly 15 years!Quite frankly, it is about time the monopoly control over the supply of labour on the Australian waterfront was broken. It is still going on. I am told that in the negotiations between Patrick's and the MUA, in which the ACTU would have been involved, the ACTU and the MUA are insisting on a closed shop on the Australian waterfront. What is that? That is an insistence on a policy position which is in direct breach of the Workplace Relations Act and the freedom of association provisions. I do not hear any confected concerns about that. I do not hear the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) arguing that that is a breach of law. No, because he is in favour of a closed shop and compulsory unionism on the Australian waterfront, even though for years and years we have known that the consequence of that monopoly is a system of rorts, very high levels of remuneration and very poor productivity.If you look at the productivity numbers in Australia today, the national five-port average is 18½ container movements per hour. The Australian average is a long way less than what they can do in places like Auckland, Manila and Laem Chabang outside Bangkok. The best in Australia is not as good as the worst in New Zealand. That is why we have been campaigning for reform. There would be a lot of benefits, according to that BTCE report; benefits to the Australian economy of over $1 billion and thousands of jobs if that could be achieved. That is a worthwhile objective.Furthermore, we had a responsibility to ensure that in the event of such industrial action we were in the best position we could be to respond to it. In terms of our approach to and our expectations of that, our expectations where that whether or not the government had made any preparations, whether or not we had an evolutionary approach to it or an activist approach—to use the words in that document—either way there was always a strong possibility of industrial action by the MUA. Given the fact that there was a strong possibility of industrial action, we had an obligation to do what we could to minimise the damage as a result of such industrial action.You lodged your complaint about the fact that a statement was made that OOCL had done a deal with the MUA. The trouble with OOCL doing a deal with the MUA is that that would be a deal simply to—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—It doesn't suit you.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is not a question of suiting us.Mr McMullan interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We had nothing to do with whether they were in Melbourne or Sydney. Conspiracy theories! The people who are pushing conspiracy theories the most in the public debate today are Pauline Hanson and the MUA. The trouble with these conspiracy theories is that you can never prove the evidence that they are not right. That is half your problem.As far as OOCL is concerned, they have done a deal with the MUA. The report I had was that the MUA leadership was taken across to the west coast of the US, feted for a week and signed up to a deal. John Coombs has boasted this on many occasions. He is in favour of enterprise bargaining as long as they are the same bargains in every enterprise. What is our objection to that? You get the same inflexible work practices, the same restrictive work practices. You get the same situation in every port—crane drivers on $90,000 a year for sitting in a crane for 14 hours. That is our objection to it. Our objection to it is not that people are members of a union; our objection to it is that they have used their monopoly control to exercise a stranglehold over the Australian economy to get a deal that nobody else could get. What is worse is that they do not even give us the productivity and reliability that an annual salary of 90 grand ought to justify. I do not mind people earning a decent salary, but I think it is fair enough for the community to say, `Well, if you're going to get a very significant wage which puts you in the top five per cent of earners in this country, then we reckon a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is a reasonable principle to apply.'The other thing I want to say is in respect of this document. It is quite a revealing document, as I am sure my colleagues on the other side will say. The document says:Patrick have now resolved to take a radical path for reform of their business, if necessary without the aid of government.Actually, I think that was rather a prophetic statement, given what happened later. That is a fact. This company has obviously had—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It's not much of a defence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You can say what you like, Kim. I do not mind telling you that this whole waterfront thing has had many bizarre twists and turns. I do not mind telling you that. Let me conclude by saying that the basis of the MUA conspiracy was that we knew about Dubai. The fact is we did not. That is the basis of it. They reckon we organised it. The fact of the matter is that we did not. Sorry to so disappoint you. (Time expired)16:00:004899McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Of course we need the suspension of standing orders, because we need the opportunity to move this censure motion and establish to the Australian people the evidence that this censure motion makes clear and which today's question time has made clear. What do we know? We know there has been collusion between the government and Patrick's stevedoring and there has been government foreknowledge of a scheme to sack Patrick's work force and replace it with an alternative work force. We know that in so doing the government has undermined the employment security of every Australian worker with precedents set by the use of the aggressive and non-consensual tactics involved in the strategy adopted in the waterfront.We know there has been a cover-up. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) said, `I am really pleased you tabled this document,' after spending months trying to prevent it and every other document being tabled. They even went to the Senate and refused to confirm there was a cabinet subcommittee because it was sub judice. We say: if you are so pleased about this document, table the rest. Table all the others that the Senate has asked for. That is all you need to do, and we will have as much fun reading those as we did reading this.We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) thinks that disputes like this on the waterfront are divisive and damaging. What these documents show is that the government deliberately set out to provoke those disputes. If they knew it was going to be divisive and damaging, they should be censured, and we should have the opportunity by suspension of standing orders so to move. We know they think rorts are terrible, but when we today tried to legislate to close scams like Patrick's scam they all came in here and voted against us. They all said, `Keep the opportunity open. Someone else might want a sack a few unionists around the country.'We all know that the Prime Minister insists that everything was lawful, but that they are scuttling off looking for indemnities so that the taxpayers will pay the bill in case it is found not to be. We know that they have deceived and misled the Australian people. We know that Mr Reith said on 8 May:As to what decisions they have taken—that is Patrick's—the fact of the matter is we were not aware of any decision taken by Mr Corrigan to replace his work force.This document proves that that is untrue. We know that Mr Reith has said:What I can say is that both companies—not just Mr Corrigan but both companies—had given consideration to various strategies but, as to which strategies they might adopt in the future, that was always a matter for them.Always a matter for them, except that the Prime Minister went to see them to say, `Cabinet thinks you ought to adopt this one.' This minister is always on the telephone ringing every company trying to provoke a bit of dispute, and the demise today of his late and unlamented political friend the member for Hume (Mr Sharp) is only a precursor; it is only a bell tolling for some others whose demise might follow.What else do we know? We know that Mr Reith misled. He was asked:Your own adviser says he advised against the wholesale sacking of MUA members and replacement. Who do you reckon came up with the idea in the first place?Peter Reith said:Well, I'm not sure anybody came up with the idea.Well then, the fairies must have written the cabinet document!5K6ELLISMs Ellis—Mr Nobody.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It must have been written by Mr Nobody, because it has got Peter Reith's signature on the bottom of it. What we know, and what the suspension of standing orders would allow us to establish, is that this government has had an agenda which it has assiduously carried out at least since July of 1997, and it has deceived this parliament and the Australian people about that agenda. At its very core, that plan was for the stevedores to sack their workers, illegally as it turns out, and rehire new people under different arrangements.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allowed for the debate on the suspension of standing orders has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:09:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)45Adams, D. G. H. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.77Abbott, 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.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McLachlan, I. M. 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.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.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.Tanner, L. J. Hawker, D. P. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Personal Explanations490116:13:004901Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I certainly do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Last night the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) made a number of serious and ill informed allegations against me in relation to the awarding of a contract linked to Badgerys Creek airport. The member for Prospect failed to follow the conventions of this House and notify me of her allegations prior to her speech.Amongst a number of false allegations, the member for Prospect alleged that I have a strong friendship with an ex-principal of Cosway, a Mr Greg Barnes. I do not know of any Greg Barnes from Cosway. Furthermore, after returning from a Labor Party fundraiser this morning, the principals of Cosway informed me that they have never employed a Mr Greg Barnes, nor has any Mr Barnes had any financial involvement with the company. Most seriously, the member for Prospect alleges that I `must come clean on whether' I `helped organise this contract for Cosway as a quid pro quo for the work it had done for' me `in the past'.As a member of parliament, I have had no professional relationship whatsoever with Cosway, and certainly I have had no involvement whatsoever in the extensive tender pro cess for the information campaign on Badgerys Creek. The member for Prospect has made a number of spurious allegations against myself and a company based in my electorate, without any recourse to the facts.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I can understand why the member for North Sydney may be aggrieved, but he has to show only where he has been misrepresented.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is.QI4PRICEMr Price—He is being argumentative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As I understand it, he is denying a series of misrepresentations. I am listening very closely.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Accordingly, if the member for Prospect has any integrity at all, she will make these allegations outside of cowards' castle or at least have the courage to apologise.Questions to the Speaker490149014901Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question to you, Mr Speaker, relates to privilege. I have been advised that a person has contacted a local organisation deceitfully stating that they were from a minister's office calling on behalf of the member for Dunkley. The person answering this call recorded the caller's name and proceeded to answer the questions being put, all the while thinking it was odd that someone was calling on my behalf, as I am quite familiar with the operations of the organisation and would know the answers to the questions being asked. Further inquiries revealed that the caller was a work colleague of a person who has declared their candidacy to contest Dunkley at the next election. Does this deceitful conduct fall within the bounds of privilege or breach other provisions designed to ensure that people do not seek to misrepresent themselves in this way? Your advice would be appreciated.4901Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member for Dunkley has raised a matter which is difficult as we run into an election. At the same time, anybody misrepresenting themselves on behalf of a member is running very close to other charges, be they criminal or otherwise. In the circumstances outlined, it is not specifically, as I would see it, a matter of privilege but it is certainly reprehensible and I would hope that no member is in any way misrepresented in that way.49024902Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My question refers to the trial in this chamber of various locations being tried by Hansard. It appears that a possible transcription error may have occurred during this period. I refer to pages 3974 and 4014 of the Hansard of 28 May for this House and the Main Committee. I note that Hansard has recorded a speech from the member for Makin in the Main Committee at 1.25 p.m. on that day and another speech in the House at 5.41 p.m. on the same day. These speeches appear to be identical. As I do not imagine for one minute that the member for Makin would make the same speech twice, would you please check with Hansard on the possibility of an error in transcription and get back to the House?4902Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member has raised an interesting suggestion of juxtaposition. I frankly do not know the answer, but I will put it to Hansard who, I have no doubt, will provide the answer. Can I suggest that the errors may not have necessarily resulted from the trialling of various places from which the Hansard reporters are taking notes?49024902Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question also relates to the Hansard trial and follows on very logically from the question put by the member for Namadgi. On the morning of 28 May, the Newcastle Herald quoted extensively from a speech presented by the member for Paterson which, it says, was made the day prior to the 28th, the 27th. On checking the Hansard I find that the comments attributed to Mr Baldwin were not made until 1.16 p.m. on 28 May. Given that the member for Paterson would not seek to mislead the Newcastle Herald , I wonder whether you can check whether there has been difficulty at the Hansard end and whether indeed that might be as a result of the trial you have put in place. 4902Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I rather suspect that the various positions Hansard is adopting seem to be used for a variety of reasons. Again, I will ask Hansard to verify the incident and I will advise the honourable member in due course.Personal Explanations490216:20:004902Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—This morning in debate the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) said that I had approached him to use his good offices to stop me getting speared in central Australia. No such event ever occurred. While I was involved in stopping a fight between warring Aboriginal factions in which spears were thrown, it was in Western Australia, not in central Australia. If the member's memory is serving him this way, then I suggest he seek some medication.Documents49024902Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Committee to examine the use of the term "Drug Free"—The use of the term "drug free" in relation to presentation and advertising of therapeutic goods—Government response.Interim report, 8 May 1998.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act—Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Inquiry into complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation—Report No. 6—Discrimination on the ground of sexual preference.Miscellaneous49024902Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call on the business of the day, can I report to the House that, on behalf of the members of this House and the President and the members of the Senate, we have conveyed to the President of the Bundesrat and the President of the Bundestag respectively our profound sorrow at the tragic loss of life that has occurred as a result of the railway accident near Hanover. The Presiding Officers asked that we ask all members to join in this and I felt that I should report it to the House.Miscellaneous49034903Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would like to publicly thank Mrs Judy Holding, the wife of Mr Clyde Holding, the member for Melbourne Ports, for two paintings that are now hanging in the walkway through the Speaker's suite. We are very grateful and I trust all members enjoy the products of her handiwork.Matters of Public Importance4903490310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government's industrial relations policies to provide employment security for Australian workersI call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees4903490349034903Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 22 June 1998. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.The report read as follows—Amended report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 22 June 1998The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 22 June 1998. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, RESOURCES AND RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on benefits for regional Australia and Australia's primary industries of, and further issues associated with, international agricultural trade reform.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on aspects of family services.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.3 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS: Report of Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Institutions, 20-30 April 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.4 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1996-97.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining for committee and delegation reports.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to remove discrimination against same sex couples in respect of superannuation benefits.2Mr 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.3Mr Martin Evans to move:(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Science and Technology be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to science and technology as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister.(2) That the committee consist of 14 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee.(12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.(18) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Pyne to move:That this House:(1) agrees that the friendship between the people of Australia and the people of Israel must continue to strengthen;(2) commends the achievements of the State of Israel during the past 50 years in its society, science, technology and culture;(3) acknowledges that, despite Israel's accomplishments over the last 50 years, their struggle for survival continues;(4) supports Israel's peace agreements with its neighbours; and (5) encourages the striving for full peace in the nations of the Middle East.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5Mr Sawford to move:That this House calls on the Government to:(1) recognise that the largely single option of a comprehensive high school system in this country is inappropriate for a majority of students at a secondary level and that this fact often leads to a perception that the public secondary school system does not meet the needs of parents and students; and(2) encourage through differential funding a range of types of public secondary schools that among others would include a re-evaluation of single sex and technical high schools.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills4905r5314905Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4905Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4905r5334905Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4905Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4905r5294905Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4905Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4905r5424905Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4905Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4905r5384905Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4905Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4906r4794906Consideration resumed from 2 June.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 14 to 20), omit paragraphs (5)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) if the RSA provider was an RSA provider at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—a day in the period from and including that 17 March to and including the following 14 April; or (b) if the RSA provider was not an RSA provider at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—the day after that 17 March when the RSA provider became, or becomes, an RSA provider.16:29:004906Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the requested amendment be made.I note that in regard to this amendment, together with the next two amendments—to the Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill and the General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998—the same comments apply as the comments I made on the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998. I do not think there is any need to repeat those comments.16:30:004906Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is the opposition's intention to agree to the requested amendments being sought to the Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 and to the other pieces of companion legislation. I would make a couple of observations concerning the Wallis package, now that it has come back from the Senate, just to make sure that Labor's position is on the public record.The government was very slow to start the Wallis process and very slow to introduce the legislation. It ought to be noted that there is now considerable pressure on the parliament to pass the Wallis package in time for a 2 July start date as a result of that slow progress.Labor generally supports the Wallis package of reforms but it is worth stating again what we do not agree with. We are opposed to any mergers between the big four banks and the big two insurance companies. This so-called `six pillars policy' was opposed by Wallis, but our reasons for opposing further major mergers are simple and clear. We can all observe an extensive and painful process of rationalisation amongst the four major banks already. This has seen a considerable loss of jobs through branch closures and outsourcing. The problem is particularly acute in rural Australia, where many country towns are left without any bank at all. As an aside, I might say that the economics of all this outsourcing would be reversed by the introduction of a GST in the financial industry.Some of the rationalisation is due to technological change, but we fail to see the merit in worsening the situation by allowing any mergers between the big four. Each of the big four banks is more than capable of competing in this country and this region. Even if all of the four banks merged, they would not rate on the US scale of mega bank mergers. The idea that Australia would want to compete in that marketplace is probably dangerous.It is not often realised that the life insurance industry is even more concentrated than banking, with the two major players, AMP and National Mutual, accounting for about two-thirds of the market. These institutions have more than sufficient financial resources to enter the banking market on their own, thereby increasing competition. So we are not persuaded that there is any public benefit in merging them with one of the banks.Labor's other concern is foreign ownership. We would also oppose a takeover between any of the major banks and a foreign bank. The previous Labor government let 16 foreign banking licences in order to stimulate competition and provide adequate opportunity for foreigners to establish themselves here. The results were painful for some, but the survivors have found profitable segments in the Australian marketplace and we see no need to provide any greater opportunity. In all these questions of mergers and acquisitions the government has yet to demonstrate form. We will be watching the use of the Treasurer's discretion in these areas wherever it applies.Labor has supported the moves to create two new bodies, the prudential regulator APRA, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, or ASIC. The consolidation into two bodies with the responsibility for prudential supervision, on the one hand, and consumer protection amongst other things, on the other, is a positive step. However, we remain concerned that there be no diminution of consumer protection in the transfer of responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of financial services to ASIC.The other source of considerable and abiding concern for Labor is the matter of bank fees and charges. In a process where both the regulations and the regulator are changed together we are concerned that there needs to be proper vigilance and protection for the consumer. Indeed, it is all but alarming to see that, since the screws were loosened in relation to approval of fees and charges, we have seen bank fees and charges rise by of the order of, I think, $657 million in the last quarter. So banks are collecting $3.5 billion annually, if I recall correctly, in fees and charges. From our point of view that is simply not good enough. You have the government wanting to take credit for lower mortgage interest rates, but when the banks say, `Higher fees and charges are the trade-off for this,' the government is not interested in trying to contain those fees and charges, as the previous government was. Having made those observations, we are not opposing the government's amendments on either this bill or the companion Wallis bills.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4907r4754907Consideration resumed from 1 June.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 14 to 21), omit paragraphs (5)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) if the life insurance company was a life insurance company at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—a day in the period from and including that 17 March to and including the following 14 April; or (b) if the life insurance company was not a life insurance company at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—the day after that 17 March when the life insurance company became, or becomes, a life insurance company.Motion by (Mr Miles) agreed to:That the requested amendment be made.Bills4907r4734907Consideration resumed from 1 June.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Clause 8, page 4 (line 24) to page 5 (line 2), omit paragraphs (5)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) if the general insurance company was a general insurance company at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—a day in the period from and including that 17 March to and including the following 14 April; or (b) if the general insurance company was not a general insurance company at all times from and including 17 March of the previous financial year to and including the following 30 June—the day after that 17 March when the general insurance company became, or becomes, a general insurance company.Motion (by Mr Miles) agreed to:That the requested amendment be made.Bills4907r5454907Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time. 16:36:004908Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—To continue and finally to conclude my comments from yesterday in regard to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998, I would like to advise that there are some minor technical errors in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to the members of this House. In the general outline and paragraph 1.3 of the explanatory memorandum there is a reference to `item 20' of the bill. This relates to the date from which the amendments are to apply. The correct reference is to item 18 of the bill. In paragraph 1.33 there is a reference to `items 17 and 19' of the bill. These relate to the amendments to section 78A of the 1936 act. These amendments are now covered by one item, item 17. The explanatory memorandum will be corrected before it is introduced into the Senate. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.16:42:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)73Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. 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.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.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. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. 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. Zammit, P. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tanner, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4908Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Miles) read a third time.Committees49094909490910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Hardgrave to be a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in place of Mr Zammit.Bills4909r4214909Consideration resumed from 27 May.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 17 (lines 18 to 26), omit section 220AAF, substitute:220AAF How amounts must be paid A large remitter must pay an amount by a means of electronic transfer approved in writing by the Commissioner. If a large remitter pays an amount other than by electronic transfer, the large remitter will be liable for a penalty under section 220AAW.(2) Schedule 5, page 44 (line 2) to page 79 (line 3), omit the Schedule.(3) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (line 25), after "is", insert "to the entity,".16:47:004909Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I will give a brief explanation of these amendments. Amendment No. 1 amends schedule 4 which deals with changes to withholding tax arrangements which commence on 1 July. It ensures that there is a clear statutory obligation for larger remitters to pay by electronic means. The amendment overcomes some of the constitutional doubts about the present drafting. The amendment does not in any way change the substance of the measure.Amendment No. 2 removes schedule 5, which contained the choice of superannuation fund measure, from the bill. This measure was a key initiative in the 1997-98 budget and involves reforms to give employees greater choice over which superannuation fund or retirement savings account will receive super annuation contributions made on their behalf by their employer. The provisions were excised from the bill to ensure the timely passage in the Senate of other measures in the bill—in particular, the savings rebate, which is a key 1997-98 budget initiative.The government introduced into the parliament a new bill—the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 —on 28 May 1998. Amendment No. 3 makes a minor technical amendment to schedule 9 which deals with distributions from private companies. It amends the definition of payment to ensure that the definition covers payments made directly to a shareholder or associate. I commend the amendments to the House.16:48:004909Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition does not oppose the amendments being brought forward by the government from the Senate, but I do not think we can let the matter pass without making a few observations about what has gone on here. The government has deleted schedule 5 from the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 —schedule 5 being its legislation dealing with choice of superannuation fund. So what the government did was to introduce the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , which the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister, the member for Braddon (Mr Miles), described as a key initiative.The government introduced it into the House last year, took it up to the Senate and then, without even putting the matter to a vote, deleted it from its legislation, thereby delaying by at least six months the legislative timetable in relation to choice of superannuation fund. It is an appalling piece of parliamentary management. The government thinks that this measure is important, yet it failed to bring it forward in a separate bill. The government linked it with the savings rebate—I do not know for what reason—and as a result it has been delayed by some six months.The opposition is not persuaded that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation, and we are certainly not prepared to support it in its present form. The same view was taken by the Democrats and, I believe, Senator Harradine and others—that it was not a good piece of legislation, that it would not operate in the interests of workers and that it would not operate in the interests of employers. Indeed, many in the superannuation industry did not welcome it and felt that it would lead to second-rate or third-rate retirement outcomes.But even if you thought it was a good idea—if you thought that choice was a good idea—you would ask: what on earth is this government doing? It produced these announcements in the 1997 budget, it amended its choice model, and then it comes back to the House at this stage, in June 1998, and says, `We had to withdraw it from the Senate and we are introducing it as a new piece of legislation.' This is like some legislative game of snakes and ladders. The government has gone up to the Senate, it hit the big snake on 97 and it went back to three and then had to start all over again. It has truly been a bizarre piece of legislative process which, frankly, means that this government's handling of superannuation issues makes its nursing home fiasco look like a model of sound public administration.As I indicated at the outset, the opposition is not going to oppose the amendments which the government has put forward. There is no opposition to the savings rebate. The opposition is happy to see these things pass through the parliament. But it really was a most extraordinary and appalling piece of political and legislative management that caused the government to link choice of fund—a highly controversial matter—with the savings rebate and other things which the government wished to get through the parliament.I take this opportunity to urge the government to rethink its position in relation to choice of superannuation fund. The parliamentary secretary pointed out that a new bill had been introduced into the parliament dealing with this matter. It suggests that the government has learnt nothing from its previous experience. The bill is in entirely the same form. Our position quite clearly is that superannuation ought to continue to be an award matter—an industrial matter—and that, as a result, the government ought not to proceed with its bill seeking to disappear superannuation as an allowable award matter and ought not to pursue its amendments here which would override superannuation arrangements entered into through an appropriate award process. The government needs to rethink that. The government needs to think about issues like the definition of industry fund, the default fund arrangements, the education arrangements and other things which are essential to obtaining support from the opposition for the government's choice proposals.The opposition has put forward a choice of superannuation fund model which it believes to be far superior to the government's. The opposition would urge the government to give the model greater consideration than it has done so far.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4910r5444910Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.16:53:004910Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I rise today to support the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 . This amendment bill will enable bona fide farmers and businesses using rural land to claim a tax rebate on up to $10,000 spent on landcare works. Taking effect this financial year, this amendment bill will provide a tax rebate of 34c in the dollar.This scheme is limited to farmers with a taxable income of up to $20,700 a year. It was interesting to hear the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) yesterday evening. He stepped to his feet and started to criticise. He suggested that, given the low figure, there would be nobody able to access this rebate, and that it was some sort of Clayton's relief. Clearly, he has absolutely no idea at all of the financial arrangements of the farming community. A $20,700 taxable income is in fact quite generous and will include a great majority of our farming community—it is estimated to be in the vicinity of 70 per cent. Anybody that has been involved in rural production will be able to tell you that there are very few who, after taking out all their agricultural or pastoral expenses, would have anything in the vicinity of $20,000-odd as an actual taxable income. Again, it is a very good case of the member for Denison misleading the farmers on this with regard to their eligibility.This bill extends the current legislation which allows for landcare deductions—currently around $5,000—to be written off in the year in which the works have been carried out. This causes a problem, particularly where low spending in any particular year prevents a full claim. Under this new scheme we are allowing these claims to be carried forward, creating a greater incentive for low income farmers to conduct landcare works. The assessment period will commence from the income year 1997-98.The government will be funding this scheme by setting aside some $80 million over four years from the Natural Heritage Trust. Again, I listened with interest yesterday evening to the member for Denison when he criticised the use of this trust for landcare. That is grossly inappropriate when you look at the intention of the Natural Heritage Trust. Quite clearly, the act allows for the allocation of funding for the environment, sustainable agriculture and natural resource management. Many of the environmental problems that we have in this country are due to unsustainable agricultural or pastoral activities of the past. So it is absolutely crucial that this type of funding is involved in order to address some of the large problems that we have.Over many years I have heard all sorts of comments about the environmental significance of the Cape York Peninsula in my electorate. Recently, some $40 million was allocated from the Natural Heritage Trust for a whole range of initiatives. Out of the $40 million, $26 million is going to go to property owners up there, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, to assist with the implementation of property plans: fencing to keep stock off water courses and erosion controls—and a whole range of other initiatives. Clearly, at the end of the day, this will be of immense benefit to the people living on the Cape York Peninsula.The member for Denison commented that our Queensland Premier was opposed to the Cape York land use strategy report. Given his position, he should be aware that that is not quite correct. The Premier was objecting to the process for the Cape York heads of agreement. He supported, as we support, some of the practical recommendations that came of the CYPLUS report. It certainly got off to a bad start. There was a lot of political interference in the early stages, but some good results did come out of it, and a lot of those outcomes will be funded through this program.This will also give encouragement to land-holders in the area to address some of the problems they experience themselves. By putting a little of their own money in—what little they have—they will be able to address some of the other problems—for example, rubber vine around the Cooktown area and sickle pod. The feral pig population is also a major problem in that area. This will certainly create incentives for people in the area to start to deal with those problems.This amendment bill clearly defines this government's approach when compared with that of those on the other side who, for 13 years, certainly failed to come to grips with the plight of the farming communities and instead pandered more to the media-attractive interest groups and projects. This is a practical grassroots environmental initiative that, through the taxation system and the Natural Heritage Trust, signals to the whole community that landcare is everybody's responsibility, not just the responsibility of the farmer who, if you like, is only the custodian of that land, and it is in their interest to maintain environmental integrity.I have to say that, particularly in recent times, farmers have certainly been aware of the need to maintain their land in order to be able to pass it on to their families. But, given the very hard times that have been experienced recently, particularly with commodity prices, they have found it extremely difficult to focus in areas like some of the landcare programs. I also have to say that I applaud the great work they have done with the limited resources they have had in the past.Clive and Betty Quartermaine from Merluna Station, up near Weipa, are a good example of local people who are actively involved in their local landcare group, and I commend them for the great work they have done in that area in the past. This legislation, I am sure, will give them great incentive to be able to maintain that work.This bill will enable farmers, as I have said, to claim rebates for work such as fencing, the construction of levees and the contouring of river banks or other degraded areas from soil erosion. It will also enable farmers to build drainage works and continue eradication of plants and pests. It has to be realised that the money invested into landcare is competing against other requirements in farming families—providing family members with educational requirements, health and, of course, their personal effects.This is why landcare has to be a whole of community approach. While the responsibility for sound landcare practices has to be initiated by the farmer, I think it is only fair that some of the costs be borne by the broader community, because at the end of the day it is the entire community that will benefit from responsible practices. Also, of course, responsible practices will help to keep families on the land and keep that land productive and, as I say, at the same time restore and protect our environment for future generations.It is appropriate too at this point of time to read from a media release of the Board of Landcare Australia commenting on our initiatives in this area. It states that the board has:. . . welcomed the challenge that comes with the $300 million in Natural Heritage Trust funds announced for landcare in the budget . . . "Additional funding will mean increased activity from landcare groups to continue delivering `on ground' environmental results" . . . So this legislation is certainly applauded by the national body of Landcare.Just in closing, I must say that I am very, very proud to announce that later this month, in Cairns, my electorate of Leichhardt will be hosting the first combined Queensland State Landcare and Catchment Management Council annual conference. This has been organised by a very, very active group in my electorate: the Russell/Mulgrave Landcare and Integrated Catchment Management Committee. It is that committee which will be hosting and organising the conference. I congratulate the conference secretary, Warren Maher, and all the members of this very, very active landcare group for achieving this coup in bringing that conference to Cairns. The conference, to be held in our magnificent conference centre, is expected to attract between 400 and 450 delegates from all over Queensland, and I certainly give it my full support.This is commonsense legislation. It is certainly a bill that will give further support to many of the initiatives we have introduced in recent times to our farming community. Not only will it benefit the farmers but, more importantly, it will benefit our environment generally. I commend the bill to the House.17:04:004912O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I rise to give an indication to the House that the opposition supports this particular piece of legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998. We are quite happy to see the government pass on to the farm sector this taxation incentive to invest in landcare and watercare or improvements on farm properties.In making a couple of comments about the bill, I will repeat a couple of things I said yesterday in the Main Committee. First, this legislation is specifically directed at help to low income farmers and comes in the form of a tax rebate of 34c. When you work through the logic of why it is a tax rebate of 34c, the answer is that low income farmers—those defined in the categories that qualify here—would have a marginal rate of tax were they getting a normal tax rebate which would be below 34c and a farmer who perhaps was in a higher income tax bracket or a farmer, for instance, with a corporate structure paying the corporate rate of 34c would, of course, get a higher level of deduction. So the point about the rebate being at 34c is that it does not matter whether it is a very low income farmer or a high income farmer, as there is the same tax incentive for this landcare investment. And I am very relaxed about that principle.I am not so relaxed about another principle that is embraced for the first time in this legislation. That is not to say that I am opposing it, but I think it needs at least to be put on the public record. When the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced that one-third of Telstra would be sold and that the proceeds of that sale would be used to reduce public debt and invest in `Australia's greatest environment program'—which I will talk about in a minute—he gave people to understand that we were selling off a public asset, with the funds to be used for investment in public environment programs. Here, we now see these Telstra funds being used as a private sector tax subsidy—in fact, a rebate paid to farmers for landcare work or capital improvements done on their own property. That is a shift down the path, when we are talking about selling Telstra and using the money to pay incentives for farmers.I well understand why the government are doing it this way, because they are taking considerable flak and questioning from the farm sector and everyone else in rural Australia about flogging off Telstra. I guess the idea is that, if you can tell the farmers that you are giving them back some of the Telstra money for their own pockets, that might in some way mitigate the discussion. But that is the effect of what is happening here. The funds from the sale of Telstra are not in this case going into public landcare and environment programs; they are going into direct tax subsidies for farmers for improvements on their own properties.I made the observation in discussion yesterday that the government has probably considerably overestimated the amount of funding that will be required in the tax bill for this. The estimate is $80 million over four years. In order to use up $80 million worth of rebate at the rate of 34c, it assumes that low income farmers are going to spend in excess of $240 million—that is, a quarter of a billion—worth of eligible expenditure on their farms. These are not the John Elliotts of the world, with his yabby farm up in the Murray River; these are low income farmers, particularly stressed low income farmers. It is a little hard to conceive that they are going to be able to generate a quarter of a billion dollars worth of eligible expenditure on their farms which will lead to the payment back of $80 million worth of tax rebates. Let us hope from the landcare point of view that they can.What I am asking is why you would make an estimate of this size, having a pretty good idea that there is no way that it is going to be spent. It is either to be able to say, `Look how much we are giving you out of the Telstra sale,' or for some reason someone has an assessment that farmers will be able to do this even though they have very low incomes and they have not got other things to do on their farm with very tight expenditure. I remember meeting a number of sugar growers in Queensland who were out of their tree—I guess that would be the way to describe it—about the breaking of the no ifs, no buts promise on sugar tariffs when they were told that they were going to be losing $3,000 a year from their farm income. They said, `What are we going to do? You are expecting us'—I said, `Not me, it is the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, who made you this promise and then broke it'—`to spend money to improve our properties, and he is expecting us to meet the new environment standards being imposed on us, but we have not got any money to do it. Now you are taking more away from us.' And again I said, `No, not me; they are taking more away from you.'The point was quite dramatic. These are low income farmers, and $3,000 out of their budget meant that they could not make necessary landcare style improvements on their properties. I just make the point that I think there is a substantial overstatement of the amount that is likely to be involved. I ask government members in their enthusiasm to bear that in mind and not talk this up too much or it will finish up being the same as the intergenerational transfer of farms, where we started off with the government saying that 10,000 farm families would be excitedly lining up for this. Now nine months down the track the estimate is that we are down to 500.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Is that all?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—That is what we are down to. I want to make another couple of points about this. Yesterday in the Main Committee when we were talking about these matters in relation to the Primary Industries budget, the minister was absolutely beside himself about my claim that this was another one of these hoaxes, another pea and thimble trick, perpetrated in the budget by the government. I was referring to the billion dollars worth of expenditure over five years on the environment, that this was some grand new budget allocation for the environment. I was making the point that, when you went through the last Labor budget of 1995-96, when you pinpointed the actual allocations in that budget for environment or landcare related expenditure, all you have is a crossing through the line of some actuals that were spent and having them taken out of the recurrent budget and replaced by grants from the Natural Heritage Trust. But the sum total—and I will now go further—is actually less, now that I have gone and properly examined this.Let me develop this a little further. When you go back and examine the last Labor budget and its allocations for direct landcare environment and Natural Heritage Trust style expenditure, you see specific programs. Landcare was one and the billion trees program was another. Others include the clean water programs under the Environment portfolio, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the adjustment packages related to the forest strategy, the greenhouse strategy—all of which had specific allocations of various amounts of funding. Then you go to the big daddy, the Working Nation program, which had $2 billion worth of expenditure in the one year.I remember when the government came to office it made a huge issue of the fact that the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), who was Labor's employment minister at the time of the change of government, had spent the whole budget, and it was nearly $2 billion worth. In that budget you find programs such as LEAP. What did LEAP stand for? The landcare and environment action program. There were thousands of young people em ployed on the landcare and environment action program in that budget allocation subsequently replaced by Green Corps—thousands replaced by a few hundred, which has now developed into a few more but certainly nothing like the scale that was conducted under LEAP.If you went to new work opportunities—NWOs, as we called them—and you had a look at the actual allocations of the style of program that was run under that, you would have found thousands of unemployed adults employed under those programs and that a large number of them were on environment, clean-up and heritage restoration style projects—exactly the same kind of projects that the government now claims to be funding with new money under the Natural Heritage Trust and landcare programs.I do not want any of this to sound like carping, but I want to make the point that, from the day it came to office, all the government did was bag Labor for its lack of investment in these programs, saying that we did not care about the environment—we all know the script—yet, whenever I have consistently made the point that this is either deceptive or just a hoax, we have had the minister say things like, `Why don't you come and get a proper briefing.' We had this yesterday in relation to the AAA package. As I said to him yesterday, `It is not me that needs the briefing; it is that National Farmers Federation that needs the briefing.' They are the ones who came out within 24 hours of the launch effectively saying, `O'Keefe is right. There is hardly any new money in this. We thought it was fabulous, Minister, when we endorsed it yesterday at the launch, but now we have had a look overnight and we agree that there is hardly any new money. It is just rebadged Labor programs.' And so is this.So enthusiastic new members of the government backbenchers who have not been through this budget process before: just temper your adulation about these things because eventually the constituents wake up. It is certainly true that there is hardly any allocation of money in city areas; that is different to Labor. Labor had the programs spread across a wide range of areas.There is no question that the allocation of these Natural Heritage Trust grants has, in the large proportion, been made to rural constituencies occupied by coalition members. We had, for example, the analogy drawn in this parliament between my own seat, the seat of Burke, and the seat of the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), the Deputy Government Whip, who is of course a coalition member. Both seats are in rural Victoria—in my case, in semi-rural Victoria—and both have the same sort of environmental issues and salinity issues. The allocation for my seat is something in the order of $100,000; the allocation for his seat, $700,000. We were saying, `What is the difference between Burke and Corangamite? Six hundred thousand dollars.' The minister takes great umbrage at us making the claim that there has been ministerial interference and direction of these allocations and these grants.It is nice to see the member for Corangamite coming in. He is going to come here and somehow try to explain why it is that allocations—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—He's one of the rorters.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—to his electorate are considerably more than mine.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—When are you going to come clean? Rorting it again!CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—The audit report did say unequivocally that if the two ministers, Minister Hill and Minister Anderson, had intended different priorities to be considered at the final judgment point they should have told the state committees that. This is the fine point that has not been developed in this debate.VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—What about the audit report?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I am talking about the audit report, for heaven's sake—listen to me. The audit report said that there was no question that the government had made the grants according to the criteria laid out.VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—That's right.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—But what you have missed, my friend, is that the ministers changed the priority for the various criteria. The audit report said, `Ministers, if you actually meant this criteria to be given top weighting and not that criteria, then you should have told the state committees because then you would not have to alter so many of their recommendations.'VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—Have you been alleging whiteboard activity?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—What was the result of all of these allocations being altered? The bias, of course, toward coalition members' seats versus Labor members' seats.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—More rorting.VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—It's whiteboard activity.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Corio is constantly interjecting towards the member for Corangamite, accusing him of rorting the system. I think that is quite inappropriate, it is against the standing orders, and I think he should be asked, first, to desist and, second, to withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Corangamite and the member for Corio will both be silent—or else!CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I endorse your ruling, sir. I will conclude on the point that, as I said, when one does a proper examination of the actual expenditure in the 1995-96 budget on environment, heritage and landcare related programs, including that huge slab of Working Nation money that went into this field, one will see there has not been any increase in expenditure on environment programs. There has simply been a shift in priorities, and that shift in priorities of course has been the subject of quite intense debate and focus. But, as I have said, we are quite happy to endorse passage of this legislation.Debate interrupted.Personal Explanations491517:22:004915Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—In a question to the Speaker today, the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) made some grossly misinformed statements. He implied that I had misled this House through giving Hansard a speech in electronic format. He referred to an article in the Newcastle Herald on 27 May in relation to a speech that I had made in this House. He implied that I had made the speech after I had given the speech to Hansard in electronic format. The speech was made in two halves, the first half in the appropriation debate at 6.02 p.m. on 26 May—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this is quite extraordinary. We are in the middle of a debate on a bill and the honourable member for Paterson comes in seeking to claim that he was misrepresented. I would have thought there was an appropriate time for him to raise this matter. Indeed, what he is doing now is debating the issue. He has claimed to have been misrepresented—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Corio. I am listening very carefully to the member for Paterson. He is in order. The standing orders and House of Representatives Practice both provide for a member to seek indulgence to make a personal explanation when no other member is speaking. I am going to allow him to continue, but he will be brief. I think he has already shown where he was misrepresented, and he will not debate it.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—I am not debating it, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, the first half of the speech was made in the appropriation debate at 6.02 p.m. on 26 May. The second half of the speech was made in the adjournment debate in the Main Committee at 1.16 on 28 May.At the request of the Newcastle Herald, I faxed a copy of the Hansard of 26 May, plus a copy of the second half of the speech to be given on 28 May. The speeches were given at two separate times on paper provided to Hansard. So the member for Hunter has, in an attempt at cheap shot politics, misrepresented my statement—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you will resume your seat. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.Bills4916r544Debate resumed.17:25:004916Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to welcome the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 on behalf of the residents of Gilmore, in particular the farmers of the three major areas—Wingecarribee, Kiama and Shoalhaven. I note that, in introducing the bill to the House on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) referred to this legislation as delivering on the commitments of our election promise in the reviving the heartland program.Electorates like Gilmore and others throughout Australia were built on primary industry. Farmers and pastoralists made up our heartland and still do in many areas of Australia. A brief look at history shows that 200 years ago when Alexander Berry took a whaleboat along what is now known as the southern New South Wales coast, he was looking for settlement land for cattle and agriculture, and he found it. Gilmore's towns and villages—its heartland—grew up on the back of primary industry.As with the rest of Australia, the impact this 200 years of agriculture has had on the landscape on the south coast and in the Southern Highlands has not gone unnoticed. There are lowering water tables and rising acid sulfate soils. It was only a few weeks ago that landowners in the village of Robertson were reporting dry wells, a phenomenon not seen for decades and one I can vouch for. The south coast farmers and other residents also felt the effects of the recent drought. Many of the families who have lived for generation after generation on the land have tried unsuccessfully to recall days of droughts more severe than the ones which have swept across New South Wales and into Gilmore recently. It is a well-documented fact that more of these effects will become apparent as we head into the next century when the long-term effects of 200 years of clearing and planting will impact heavily not only on production but also on our pristine and unique environment.Already land-holders and farmers in Gilmore have taken advantage of programs offered by this government to identify and rectify problems. In Berry, for example, farmers are working cooperatively with the Shoalhaven Catchment Management Committee to examine ways to conserve Broughton Creek. With the announcement of a Green Corps program in this area, another 10 participants will be offered the skills and confidence of working with the environment to survey flora and fauna, revegetate eroded land and help protect our sensitive environmental areas which the electorate and Australia are known for. The National Parks and Wildlife Service at Minnamurra is also looking at ways to control weed infestation into the rainforest from neighbouring farm properties. Again, this is an ideal location for another government program offering opportunities for local young people in work for the dole. This bill will be another major contributor to protecting and enhancing Gilmore's natural environment.In Gilmore, more than 60 per cent of the population receives an income of less than $30,000 a year. Through this government's policies and programs I am delighted to watch our unemployment level continually dropping. Our electorate work force includes workers in a range of industries and farmers of many generations. Like workers in any other industry, the farmers have had to work harder to receive even marginal returns on their investments. Yet fixing the very real environmental problems we have on our properties can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill will provide assistance to those in Gilmore who would normally have very little financial incentive to undertake major landcare and environmental works.This is a significant initiative of the Natural Heritage Trust, from which Gilmore has already received a quarter of a million dollars for volunteers to assist them in preserving and conserving local places of significance of which we have been blessed with many, both historically and environmentally. It is these farmers on low incomes who are most in need of assistance to complete landcare works.This bill introduces an alternative tax rebate for low income farmers so as to improve their incentive to invest in landcare works. Farmers with taxable incomes of up to $20,700 a year will have the option of claiming a tax rebate on their investments in landcare works on their property. This is an alternative option to farmers receiving accelerated deductions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The economic benefit farmers can derive from the rebate reducing their tax liability can substantially exceed the benefit of taking income tax deductions at the marginal tax rate. The alternative equation works out to a rebate of 34c in the dollar for funds spent on works such as landcare, water conservation and conveying works. That is a maximum of $1,700 based on expenditure of $5,000 on works which would otherwise be deductible under the Income Tax Assessment Act.This means the rebate can be claimed for up to $10,000 of eligible expenditure in any year if there is expenditure of $5,000 under each subsidy under the act. Eighty million dollars will be spent on the rebate over four years from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund. Importantly, it will not increase the paperwork burden on our farmers, who are in effect small business operators. They will simply have to maintain records of expenditure on landcare works in the same manner as they currently do for income tax deductions. This is a major announcement for the farmers of the electorate of Gilmore. It is also a win for the rest of the local community.Like the sensitive environmental systems which depend on each component to function and survive, each section of our local community depends on the others to thrive and develop. The tourism industry relies on picturesque valleys and farmland in the highlands and on the coast in the same way that oceans require clean rivers to support them. These links show our great dependence on each other, for improved environmental works on farmland improve production on the land. Improved production increases the ability of local manufacturers to source the product they need and therefore improve exports.Speaking of exports, I welcome the figures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) this week which showed that, for the period from 1 July 1997 to 1 May 1998, 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.Adjournment491810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.491817:30:004918Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Some people might argue that this government is on the fiddle. It has fiddled with the provision of employment services in its manic hatred of the public sector by engaging in an experiment that would make even Margaret Thatcher blush with embarrassment. It has privatised the Commonwealth Employment Service and in its place put a Job Network and a host of privately owned employment service providers—many of whom are yet to fully become operational. Many do not have the computer plugged in or have the appropriate staffing levels, and some even close their doors during the week. It will also introduce the common youth allowance on 1 July 1998.I remarked yesterday that this was a sleeper issue in the electorate which is about to bite. Today I received correspondence from two very concerned individuals who are victims of the employment services experiment and of the common youth allowance. One was from a worker who has just been retrenched, along with 199 fellow workers, from the Cordeaux colliery. He says in his letter:I wanted to be positive about the situation and went to register as a job seeker at Centrelink Wollongong, only to be told that I could not register as a job seeker because I am not entitled to any financial benefits.My constituent was not interested in applying for income support; he just wanted to register as a job seeker. His letter goes on:I feel I am being discriminated against and deprived of a service offered . . . He is absolutely spot on. Then he makes this very important point. He says:I will not be a listed unemployed worker as well as the rest of my ex-workmates, so the government's unemployed figures are not the real factual ones. I hope this letter may bring to light the problems of a genuine unemployed job seeker.This government really underestimates the intelligence of the electorate. My constituent, a retrenched miner, a genuine job seeker, has worked out this government's employment statistics scam. The unemployment figures to be released in mid-June for May are totally lacking in any credibility. They are nothing figures because this government has manipulated them through its scam of changing employment services.The electorate has worked it all out. They will know, the next time they see the grinning faces of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), that the figures they will praise as an achievement are nothing but a fraud. My constituent says in his letter to me:. . . the government's unemployed figures are not the real factual ones.Any reduction in unemployment that the figures show for May is an achievement only of Patrick Stevedore type accounting. The government artificially improves unemployment by knocking unemployed people off any form of assistance.I turn now briefly to the common youth allowance and correspondence from a young university student. He says:I am a 3rd year university student at the University of Wollongong. I am studying to gain a degree in science so that I can work and make a difference in this country.He continues:The problem with this new payment scheme is that for 16 to 24 year old full-time students like myself who currently live at home and receive the independent Austudy rate of $265.90 per fortnight, it is proposed that for me my rate of payment will drop to $174.80 per fortnight.He has done his calculations and knows precisely how much the common youth allowance is going to cost him. He says:In the brochure about this new payment it states that this scheme will encourage young people to study and that students full time and part time will be better off. Forgive me if I can't see how I will be better off.He finishes:I can't understand how the government can reduce the income of students. Students are the future of Australia . . . I hope this letter can be used to fight against this proposed scheme.I note that those on the other side have gone awfully quiet now. These two letters are the reality out there in my electorate and the reality in many other electorates as well. Yet the coalition members in this place like the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) expect us to believe that there are no complaints in her electorate, that she never receives a complaint about anything the government does nor a telephone call from a constituent. She must have the quietest electorate office in Australia in that case, which may explain why she has a penchant for writing critical correspondence of her own.491917:35:004919Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise today to speak on behalf of the many residents of my electorate of Gilmore who have expressed to me their concerns regarding the level of gratuitous violence, sex and nudity which is currently being broadcast on our radio and television stations. At the outset, I would like to address the obvious answer to these matters, that of switching stations. `Why don't you just turn off or change the channel?' is the common call of those against change. They are, of course, correct—self-censorship is still the major regulator of our broadcast media. However, as a mother of two and `oma' of five, I am more than concerned about the access of our children to such programs, whether on broadcast media or more recently on the Internet.Residents of Gilmore from the Southern Highlands, Kiama, Shoalhaven and Ulladulla have welcomed the stand by the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston, against violence and sex on the broadcast media and in particular on the Internet. When Australians of all ages are subjected to gratuitous nudity under the guise of demonstrating medical or even educational points, it goes beyond the pale. I would like to clarify here that the communities of Gilmore, in their stand against such displays of gratuitous nudity, are not complaining about educational material. Programs which confront sexual issues with honesty and integrity are educational and have the potential to be lifesaving, and are not being targeted for regulation.The residents of my electorate who have objected to programs on television and radio are not offended by the sight of the naked female or male body. However, they are offended by exploitation, graphic violence against other people and the broadcast media promoting unsafe or dangerous practices. The ease with which pornography can be accessed on the Internet by anyone, including children and young people, astounded me when it was demonstrated to me by a concerned resident several months ago. Child pornography still continues in our community, and a recent edition of a weekly current affairs program highlighted the fact that for our children sex has become a goal and that increasingly younger children engage in unsafe practices to attain the image they see and hear about in all forms of media.A recent Australian Broadcasting Authority survey showed that 72 per cent of viewers of television after 8.30 p.m. thought that there was too much violence in programs. Forty-seven per cent said there was too much sex, and 31 per cent believed there was too much nudity. I understand fully that we have the opportunity to turn off offensive programs. However, should such programs be encouraged even when they contain potentially damaging images for our children? Just whose responsibility is it? That question in itself creates a separate but linked dilemma. Nevertheless, I am advocating a greater level of responsibility in our society, not just in our media but also beyond. I am very aware of the images and labels which will be created to oppose these moves and against me personally as they did when I recommended the installation of the v-chip in all TV sets.The terms `censor' and `censorship' carry mostly negative connotations in our community. The mere mention of changing ratings of movies receives a response which gives the impression that some Orwellian gatekeeper is considering total abstinence from sex and its related marketing. This is not what the people of Gilmore who have brought to me their concerns have called for, nor is it what is required in this instance.The question of who has the right to determine what others will and will not watch and hear is a longstanding argument, and one which will no doubt continue for many decades to come. Yet the time to act is now, and action in various forms has already been taken. I was delighted to advise my constituents of the launch of KaHootz, the first child safe site on the Internet. This site provides security for children. They cannot access other sites deemed inappropriate and it cannot be accessed by unapproved users.The minister has already contacted the ABA regarding the content of some television programs and I was delighted to read in the newspapers that this has already brought results with a decision by commercial television stations to curb gratuitous nudity. In this day and age we have the capacity to switch over and switch off and I encourage Australians to clearly voice their opinions to their local community representatives when it comes to matters of an offending nature in our media and more widely in our society.I also believe that as members we should also be looking at ourselves in terms of our language and behaviour in parliament and outside to ensure we are setting the right example for the community, particularly our children.The residents of Gilmore have been very vocal in their support of enforcing codes to protect our children, in particular from violence, sex and bad language. I welcome the changes which have been made so far, while also suggesting that there is still a lot more to be done.492017:39:004920Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The remuneration of company executives continues to outpace the wage growth of ordinary Australians in a matter which can only be described as gross and indecent. I was pleased to see that two weeks ago the Reserve Bank came out against executive salaries that do not match up to company profits. In a submission to the banking and finance parliamentary committee, the bank said that executive salaries `do not appear to have been affected by the recent declines in corporate profitability'. At a time when every wage increase of ordinary PAYE workers is tied to increased productivity, executive salaries increase with seemingly no regard to the financial performance of the company.When the packages that some of these executives are earning are examined, it is little wonder that ordinary Australians find them so obscene. The chief executive of Colonial receives $1.35 million and his personal fortune is reported to be worth somewhere in the vicinity of $16 million as a result of shares that he gets. His predecessor from the former State Bank of New South Wales earned $1.76 million but resigned after being in the job less than a year. The chief executive of AMP Ltd had a total remuneration package of $3.9 million in 1997. There was talk in March this year that the new chief executive of BHP could potentially obtain a package perversely valued at around $8 million.Ordinary Australians are justifiably horrified to think that this can happen while at the same time the government seems to begrudge them the most modest increase in their wages. Last year the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) decried the fact that the Transport Workers Union and transport companies had negotiated an 11 per cent increase. This was done, of course, under his own industrial relations legislation. Where is his condemnation of the extraordinary executive salary packages?The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business speaks, dripping with venom every day, about how much money wharfies are supposedly receiving. But does he say anything about the rates of executive remuneration? No, never ever. It is symptomatic of this government that it attacks people like those on unemployment benefits or sole parents while allowing such abuse to go on unchecked. I again call on the government to have an inquiry into executive salaries that involves subjecting them to the same kinds of productivity tests that everyone else is forced to undergo to justify the most minor wage increase. The inquiry needs to come up with measures to control executive salaries in line with wider wage increases and disincentives to ridiculous packages which limit their tax deductibility.The Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) said about welfare cheats:Those who persist with their attempts to rip off the system should be aware that it is not a matter of if, but when, they are caught.If only the government used the same harsh rhetoric and the exaggerations of wharfies' pay details in its pursuit of those on enormous salaries who rort, cheat and evade their taxation obligations. The government has given up on trying to target family trusts which can be potentially used for tax evasion purposes. A cynic might suggest it was because so many government members had them themselves.The Australian Taxation Office estimates that it can take in an additional $200 million more over the next two years through its high wealth individuals task force. Despite the ATO having identified this problem, the government has no measures in place to fight it. It is galling that the government invests so much time and energy into getting stuck into some of the most vulnerable groups in our community, while at the same time doing nothing about the practices involved in executive remuneration which could also be called rorts.The government is always very quick to claim that it is getting rid of rorting in the social security system. It claims that one in 10 social security recipients audited in the second half of last year had received payments to which they were not entitled. Yet there were only 1,319 convictions for fraud in the same period. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of these adjustments were the results of honest mistakes or departmental errors.It is disgraceful for the government to be portraying these Australians as rorters and abusers when the real rorters and abusers are to be found amongst the high wealth individuals who do everything they can to squirm out of paying their rightful share of tax.In conclusion, I am reminded of the saying from a Cockney verse that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) often entertains his caucus colleagues with. That verse says, `It's the poor what gets the blame.'492117:44:004921Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise tonight to alert the House to a situation that is of great concern to parents in my electorate of Forde, as I am sure it is for parents across Australia. Anyone who has children knows that the teenage years can be difficult. There is a time when young people develop their own values and ideals and their own perceptions of the world and their place in it. It is a time when parents most want to offer guidance and help and when children least want to listen to it. Having raised four boys and four girls, I certainly know it can be tough at times.Recently a concerned local parent came to me. She and her husband had become increasingly alarmed at the marked change in their 15-year-old son's behaviour and attitude. When they examined his CD collection, he had been listening to a CD and had been watching a video that were absolutely disgusting—and with good reason. The group, which I understand is becoming increasingly popular with Australian teenagers, is an American band called Marilyn Mason. It is apparently named after the convicted mass murderer, Charles Mason, and Marilyn Monroe. The video is called `Dead to the World.'R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It is Marilyn Manson.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—Charles Manson. There are a number of CDs including one called—Honourable members interjecting—6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—Listen! You might be able to teach some children the benefits of this too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will ignore all the interjections.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—There are a number of CDs, including one called Smells like children . My constituents have given me copies of the video and the lyrics of these so-called `songs'. I cannot repeat most of the lyrics in this place because of the vile language used. Titles like Irresponsible hate anthem and Cake and sodomy give you some idea of what they are like.There are constant references to suicide, murder, violence and sexual deviancy. There are lyrics like `I throw a little fit, I slit my teenage wrists,' and `Who said date rape isn't kind.' Another title is `I want you more when you're afraid of me.' These are words from a song on this album, and it is called Get your gun:Goddamn your righteous handI eat innocent meatThe housewife I will beatThe pro-life I will killWhat you won't do I willI bash myself to sleepIt goes on in similar fashion. The video is a disgusting collection of songs interspersed with clips of the band who, needless to say, look like something from a horror show—taking drugs, urinating, describing prostitution as a beautiful thing and engaging in self-mutilation.I am deeply concerned that this sort of absolute rubbish is available in Australia for our young impressionable teenagers. Although classified MA, the video and CD were purchased over the counter of a music store in central Brisbane by a 15-year-old. The messages are clear and incredibly antisocial. The back of the CD cover has the following message to entice the young ones to buy it:You spoon-fed us Sunday morning mouthfuls of maggots and lies disguised in your sugary breakfast cereals. The plates you made us clean were filled with your fears. These things have hardened in our soft pink bellies. We are what you have made us . . . We have grown up watching your television. We are a symptom of your Christian America, the biggest Satan of all. This is your world in which we grow. And we will grow to hate you.Members of the health and family affairs standing committee have looked closely at the problem of youth suicide, including at the conference in Parliament House last year hosted by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).The Howard government is directing extra resources to address the problem of youth suicide with more funds for counselling services, including the kids helpline which is run by the Boys Town organisation which is based in my electorate.We are taking positive steps to do more. But the exposure to material such as this has a profound effect on our young people. Apparently my constituent had discussions with other local parents who are also alarmed at the change in their children's behaviour since they began listening to this band.I have written to the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) making him aware of this material and seeking his advice on whether something can be done to prevent this material being imported into Australia in the first place. I am a believer in freedom of choice but I also believe that we have a duty to protect our children, and this material is clearly directed at teenagers. I fail to see that it has any cultural or musical value whatsoever. In fact, I understand that it has been banned in most states in America. I am told that there is also some discussion that this band intends to tour Australia in the future. I will certainly bring this to the attention of the immigration minister if this is the case and do all in my power to prevent that from happening.I urge all parents to take a close interest in what their children are listening to and watching and to be wary of this revolting material. Our young people deserve much better than the message of hate and violence being put forward by this disgusting group. (Time expired)492217:49:004922Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—In an earlier personal explanation the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) accused me of misrepresenting him. All I did in my question to you at question time today, Mr Speaker, is point out that the Newcastle Herald on the morning of 28 May reported a speech that the member for Paterson did not make until 1.16 p.m. on 28 May.Tonight I wish to respond to the claims made by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) about our trading relationship with Canada. In reply to a question without notice from the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) yesterday about the crisis in the pork industry, the Prime Minister said that Australia had an eight to one trade balance with Canada. The PM said:If we were to be so short-sighted as to chop off imports from a country in respect of which we have a trade balance of about nine to one, we would in fact be cutting off our nose to spite our face.The Prime Minister went on to say:If you chop off imports in the wrong place, you will chop off Australian jobs.If anyone needs to ensure that they have their facts straight, it is the Prime Minister. The last person the Australian community would expect to distort and misuse statistics to argue their case is the Prime Minister. Yet this Prime Minister does just that. He was happy to claim a trade balance ratio of nine to one against Canada to justify abandoning this important rural industry—an industry that directly and indirectly employs thousands of people throughout regional Australia.If the Prime Minister looked at the Canada Fact Sheets on the Internet he would have found that our merchandise exports to Canada in 1996 were valued at $1.3 billion. He would have also found the following: our imports from Canada were $1.5 billion; our service exports in 1995-96 were valued at $284 million; Canada's exports and services to this country were valued at $403 million; and we have a services trade deficit of $119 million. I would have thought that the Prime Minister might have at least shown this industry a little respect by telling them up-front that he plans to let many of them go to the wall. I certainly did not expect him to misuse trade data in an attempt to justify his failure to even consider using the safeguard provisions of GATT to ensure the pork industry is not destroyed by potentially unlimited quantities of subsidised pork.The industry has gone through enormous change in recent years. The number of producers has been significantly reduced. In the 1970s there were more than 40,000 producers. There are now just over 3,000. Productivity has improved dramatically. This change has been both dramatic and difficult for the industry and it has been a burden carried by the industry itself.Pork producers have not enjoyed the benefits of price stabilisation schemes. There have not been any floor prices to rely on. There have not been any single desk arrangements, import tariffs or quotas to rely upon. Yet the government has dramatically changed the market environment in which the pork industry must live. It also says that there is more to come, with future access to our market by producers from Mexico, South Africa, the United States of America, and so on.This week the government received an independent report from the University of Queensland confirming the severe impact of imports on the local industry. What does the Prime Minister say in response? Basically he says, `Bad luck. We don't want to upset the Canadians.'I am not calling for a blanket ban on imports. I am not asking the government to work outside the WTO rules. I am simply talking about the need to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to allow for ongoing and orderly adjustment in the pork industry. I want more resources made available to establish new export opportunities to grow those markets in which we already have a foothold. I am talking about the provision of short-term assistance similar to exceptional circumstances assistance and I am talking about enhanced re-establishment grants to help those producers who decide to exit the industry.This is an important industry to Australia. Pork producers are quite rightly looking towards exports to secure their future. But unless the government acts to ensure the industry can live in this new trade environment, there will be no future. Unless the Prime Minister looks to see what he can do rather than look at what he cannot do, this industry will go down the gurgler. There will be no industry left to establish growth export markets. (Time expired)492417:54:004924Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to talk about the pork industry tonight. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was perfectly correct. He was talking about agricultural exports. With $450 million sent to Canada and $56 million returning, that is a factor of eight or nine to one. The future of the Australian pork industry is a great matter of concern to pork producers in my electorate of Hinkler, as I am sure it is to primary producers across Australia. It is certainly a great concern to me because I think the community at large is not aware of the degree of exposure pork producers are subjected to, quite unlike any other primary industry. You cannot, for example, in bad times, stick the pigs up in the back paddock for six or 12 months. Nor can you escape from the reality, if you have a 300-sow piggery, that you are paying out anything up to $40,000 a month or half a million dollars a year in stockfeed. It does not take the bank long to close in on you if you do not have a profitable unit.About 21 per cent of Queensland pork producers are located in my electorate of Hinkler. Over the last three decades, the industry has contracted dramatically. In 1960, there were 49,000 producers; in 1970 there were 39,000; in 1980 there were 19,000; in 1990 there were 7,000; and in 1997 there were 3,300. You could hardly say then that this is an inefficient industry. Over that period too the number of sows has remained at around 300,000, yet the number of sows per farm has increased from 4½ to 89½—again, hardly an inefficient industry.In my electorate of Hinkler, even before I got into politics, I had a lot to do with Monto Pork Enterprises, a cooperative of 97 growers. These people, by banding together, bought their own stockfeed, chemicals, veterinary supplies, fuel and telephone services, and introduced best farm practices and quality assurance—again, hardly the indications of an inefficient industry.Where the industry falls down badly is in the field of abattoirs and processing. Australia has an abysmal record in this field. Unless there is an injection of some form of government funding, it is not likely to catch up.The other thing that the pork producer has to contend with is that the price required to keep the farms viable is about $2.10 per kilo. At present, pork producers are receiving between $1.50 and $1.70 per kilo. It is amazing too, when you go into a supermarket, that you see some of the cuts as high as $13.20 and $14.90 a kilo. One has to believe that there are some unjustified profits being made on the way through at the expense of these growers.I propose that the $10 million promotional and restructuring program be expanded. I am in agreement with the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) that the RAS provisions, or something similar, should be implemented as a matter of urgency to provide sustenance and interest payments to farmers. The enforcement of labelling should be made a priority. The investigation of supermarket pricing by the ACCC should also be a high priority. A public campaign could also be most effective. If every Australian who went into supermarkets and butcher shops said, `Is that Australian pork?' it would not take long for supermarket chains and butcher shops to get the message.I call tonight for an inquiry into the pork industry. There is a lot of controversy. ABARE and the University of Queensland do not agree on what the problems of the industry are, so it must be fairly difficult. I call for the following in this inquiry: the effectiveness and focus of our peak bodies and industry agencies; access to grain and stockfeed; the adequacy of abattoirs and processing works for domestic and export production; impediments to export; a focus marketing and promotional body; and the effectiveness of the implementation of new labelling regulations.I hope on that basis the industry could look forward to a brighter future. I call on the government to adopt that inquiry as a matter of urgency.492417:58:004924Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I refer to the report Ten years on: A review of the House of Representatives committee system and notice, with some fear, a recommenda tion, amongst other things, that the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories not be reconvened in the new parliament. I disagree very strongly with this recommendation. I implore people to read very carefully the dissenting report of my colleagues in that report. I will be doing more in this House in coming weeks to ensure the continuation of that important committee.492517:59:004925Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—We all recall Ron Grant, the man who set the world record for running around Australia non-stop, a good Caboolture boy. He has now been followed by Gary Parsons, another Caboolture lad, who, next week, will set off to break the world record for running the Birdsville Track, an arduous activity. I wish him and his wife all the very best. His support team is Jim Johnson, the local pharmacist, and Phoenix Caravans of Caboolture. I know he will do us all proud. I wish him all the best on the track next week.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:004925House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Documents4925The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 4 June 1998:Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 118.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act—Determination 1998 No. SCD 98/3.Superannuation Contributions Tax Imposition Act—Determination 1998 No. SCD 98/6.Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act—Determination 1998 No. SGD 98/1.Taxation Administration Act—Determination 1998 No. TD 98/12.Rulings 1998 Nos. TR 98/7, TR 98/8.Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act—Determination 1998 No. SCD 98/5.Termination Payments Tax Imposition Act—Determination 1998 No. SCD 98/4.1998-06-04Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members4926492609:40:004926Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Next Monday, 8 June, is for most of Australia a public holiday. It is the Queen's birthday holiday. As an avowed republican, I always work in my office on this day to make a statement, although my staff take the day off. In reality, it is not Mrs Betty Windsor's birthday at all. This, I understand, is in April, and for many hundreds of Australians this long weekend has absolutely no relevance at all. It is just another day added to the usual weekend break.I have long believed, and this has been a feature of a few of my remarks in this place, that the Queen's birthday weekend ought to be replaced by another more substantial and relevant occasion. In my view, May Day should replace it in recognition of the achievement of workers in the trade union movement in Australia and throughout the world. In many countries of the world May Day is declared a public holiday. In fact, in many Asian countries, such as Malaysia, the government believes that May Day is significant enough to be declared a public holiday. Indeed, in many European countries it is a holiday.When we go to the people next year with a referendum on this very issue, I am confident that the majority of Australians, especially in my own electorate, will vote in favour of Australia becoming a republic. The point I would make—and I see those opposite are a little bit upset—is that changing the Queen's birthday holiday to May Day would have no cost impact on the country because you are only replacing one date with another date. I think it is much more relevant to modern-day Australia to have May Day, if we are going to have a public holiday, and that may be a debate. I am all in favour of it, but I can understand that there is a debate about whether we should have a public holiday.In fact, despite what some of the critics say, when you look at a chart of public holidays of many countries throughout the world, the number of public holidays in Australia is quite well down compared with other countries such as France and Italy. I think we have more than the United Kingdom but most certainly a lot fewer than a lot of other countries. Therefore, I think it is important that the days we celebrate, by having the day off and getting paid for it, should have a significance to us. I really do not see why Mrs Betty Windsor's birthday has more significance than my birthday or any other person's birthday, but I do think that May Day does have a significance.I will be in my office on Monday. The local media often checks me out on this because they know my view, and they have a tendency to ring my office. I am sure if they rang the office of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) she would probably be there on Monday as well. I am always there, and I make a point of saying, `I am working today as a statement.' My staff do not work on that day. They have it off, and they are welcome to have it off. But I strongly urge that May Day replace the Queen's birthday as the public holiday. (Time expired)492709:43:004927Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I want to talk briefly this morning about some of the choices that will be available to electors in my electorate of Aston at the upcoming election.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I hope they are going to vote for you.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—I certainly hope they will vote for me as well. Of course, there will be the traditional contest between Liberal and Labor. We will talk about the fact that unemployment in my electorate went from 1.4 per cent when Labor came to power to about nine per cent when they left and how it has come down under our government. We will talk about interest rates and how they went through the roof under Labor and have come down under our government. We will talk about government debt, which went through the roof under Labor and has come down under our government. We will talk about the fact that we have inflation under control, the fact that we are up-front on taxes and that we actually reduce taxes. But I also understand that we may well find that we have a One Nation candidate in my electorate, and I just want to say a couple of words about the subject of the One Nation Party.I can understand that, whilst some people in this country might be attracted by the superficial appeal that comes from One Nation, it is a complex world we live in. It is a changing world. There are attractions perhaps to having some simple cut-through solution that people think is going to fix everything. Unfortunately, the real world is not like that. I would suggest to people who may be considering looking at One Nation that they need to look very closely at the policies of One Nation. They ought to ask for the detail. They ought to ask how these grandiose statements are actually going to be achieved.We saw a good example yesterday in question time when the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) stood up and asked the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) why he had not imposed a tariff on pork imports from Canada. The Prime Minister quite rightly made the point that it is not as simple as that, because, if we do that, the Canadians will then impose a cut-off on imports we send to Canada. As we send eight times as much to Canada as we bring from Canada, we would have a net job loss. It seems to me that that is not a very smart move. It seems to me that that is typical of the sorts of policies we get from One Nation. They are simplistic, they are there to appeal to the average person in the street who perhaps does not understand some of those complexities but would in fact do damage to this country.What One Nation is all about is saying that it wants to do this, that or the other, and, when you look through it, it is going to do damage to the country. It is going to do damage to the country in a whole range of areas. I would appeal to the electors of Aston and in fact the electors across the country that they ask One Nation candidates not for the cheap rhetoric, not for the grand phrase but to spell out how they are going to do things. I would suggest that, when it comes to how things are going to be done and you compare the record of my party and my government with what One Nation is saying, this government has been delivering. This government has been delivering in tough times. We acknowledge that there is more to be done and we will continue to do it, but people out there should not be fooled or be taken in by the fool's gold of One Nation. (Time expired)492709:46:004927Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am very pleased to see that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) is in the chamber. I wanted to talk about the Labor Party's dental health program which, in its last full year of operation, assisted over 600,000 of our fellow Australians to get dental help. As Mrs Gash wrote to the Prime Minister:Prime Minister, as you would understand, people do not stomach cuts to basic health needs particularly well. Indeed they are outraged at our insensitivity and I have a lot of trouble defending the decision to abolish the scheme.I applaud the frankness and forthrightness of the member for Gilmore. I want to recount to the House just what sort of impact this is having, and this is just a random selection of people who have rung my office. I will not quote the names of course, but one constituent will have to wait two years to have a filling and a plate made. Another constituent will have to wait 12 to 18 months to have teeth in urgent need of repair and fillings seen to. Another constituent was told that he would have to wait 15 to 16 months to have repairs done to his dentures which are split. He was advised that he should just use superglue to tack them together and to wait 15 to 18 months to have them properly seen to. Another constituent will have to wait three years to have her teeth seen to at Blacktown hospital. Another constituent has been told she will have to wait seven to eight months for an assessment: this is merely the assessment. She broke her front tooth in January. She, and this is someone not of a great financial capability, ended up having to pay $800 going private. Her husband, whose bottom denture is in need of repair, has equally been forced to pay $800. That is $1,600 in one year for a pensioner couple. The point I am making is that a lot of our fellow Australians are suffering because of the abolition of this dental scheme. I thought it was an excellent scheme. The states do not have the capacity to pick up the leeway that this scheme filled. I would certainly urge the government to reconsider its decision and reinstitute the program. It is heartless and uncaring. They do not understand how important good dental health is.492809:49:004928Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—In my electorate of Gilmore, as throughout Australia, families, young people and other local residents have been for many years feeling the effects of unacceptable unemployment rates. The doom and gloom picture of what this does to people of all ages is well documented, particularly in terms of the low self-esteem, employment opportunities and networks of long-term unemployment people. Many projects in the Gilmore electorate, including one of the biggest work for the dole pilot programs, are contributing to rebuilding the confidence of many people about returning to the work force. It is now time to build the confidence of employers. An initiative by some very special members of the Gilmore community have done just that, proving that the jobs are out there and that people who are willing to have a go can achieve anything. Following months of promotion, talkback radio comment and lobbying, award winning local radio station 2ST DJ Barry Macaffrey developed a plan to promote jobs in the southern highlands and south coast. In conjunction with Gail Schmierer and Ray Carrall of the local offices of the CES and myself, Jobs Drive 98 was born. I would like to detail to the committee some points about Jobs Drive 98. It received no direct government funding. It was totally community based. It took one month of planning and it went for just 12 hours. It aimed to provide employers and potential employees with information about jobs and the assistance which is available to get them. It was supported by local businesses, media and the wider community. The local branches of the CES donated not only their expertise but also their staff time to help coordinate the event both on the day and in the lead-up. Radio 2ST donated advertising and news time to promote the event and many hours of work by the staff in the week before making sure all went smoothly.Local newspapers donated hundreds of dollars worth of free advertising to support the cause. I spent the two weeks prior notifying all businesses of the Jobs Drive and how they could become involved through letters, press releases and my business fax stream information service. Most importantly, Jobs Drive 98 was a resounding success. We aimed to achieve $500,000 worth of jobs for local people, that is half a million dollars in wages which would have been spent in the local area. On 21 February, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., while I helped man the phones at the CES office, we and Radio 2ST took numerous calls from employers with available work opportunities, business people looking for more information on the government's innovative and very successful assistance schemes, traineeships and apprenticeships, and potential employees who gave their skills, experience and career choice over the air. At the end of 12 hours I am delighted to advise the committee that not only did we achieve our goal of $500,000 worth of jobs but we more than doubled it, achieving $1.34 million worth of jobs for local people. The success of Jobs Drive 98 has been celebrated by many employers and employees throughout Gilmore. It has been so successful in generating confidence in the employment sector in Gilmore that we are looking to hold another in the next two months.492909:52:004929Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I was suspended from the House earlier this week for interjecting on the minister for unemployment. Much as I would have preferred not to have been suspended, I was concerned that Dr Kemp was talking about the job placement programs as being such a great success. I do not know whether this might be occurring in some parallel universe for which Dr Kemp has responsibility, but it is certainly not what is happening in the electorate of Wills. For example, my office had a call from Mr Max Keating of North Essendon in relation to new employment service providers. He said his son had a job with one of the councils but was recently made redundant. He went off to the local employment services provider, Job Net, and found a gardening job that interested him. He was referred on to Job Plus in Nicholson Street, Footscray. He was later contacted by Job Plus and advised that he was not eligible to apply for the position because he was not registered as unemployed.Mr Keating pointed out to my office his belief that the minister had stated publicly at some stage that anyone looking for employment could apply with the new agencies. Indeed, that is correct. Dr Kemp, in response to a question without notice from the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), said:A free employment service will be provided by the government through the new Job Network. It will provide upgraded facilities to all unemployed people, whether they are on benefit or not.But what happens to Mr Keating's son? He is told he cannot apply for the gardening job because he is not registered as unemployed and is not receiving unemployment benefits.Mr Keating quite correctly points out that this was an opportunity for his son to gain employment but, under the new system, his son was denied this opportunity. Under the old system, the CES, his son would have been given the opportunity to compete for this job. It is simply not good enough and makes a mockery of Dr Kemp's claims that the new job placement services represent an improvement. What about the work for the dole scheme? I put a question on notice to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs asking: how many voluntary participants in the work for the dole scheme reside in the postcode areas 3039, 3041, 3055, 3056, 3057, 3058, 3059, 3040, 3044 and 3046—postcodes which represent the electorate of Wills? The answer came back that, of these postcodes, we have one participant in one of them, and that is in 3058 which is Coburg. So, in the entire electorate of Wills, we have one person involved in work for the dole—a mickey mouse scheme replacing Labor's great Working Nation program which had reduced unemployment in Wills from higher than the national average to the national average. This government replaced what was an excellent scheme, a first-class scheme, with a mickey mouse scheme with only one participant. (Time expired)493009:55:004930Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I also want to talk about employment prospects today. As far as the Job Network scheme is concerned, it is going well. It is in its infancy stage and it is working well. Although people are concerned, they have to understand that a new scheme like this which is in its infancy will change and will adapt. It is working well for unemployed youth.But today I want to talk more about the middle-aged group; I want to talk more about the people aged between 40 and 60 years of age. A lot of these people have found themselves unemployed. We are talking about people who are former bank managers or who may have left Telstra and other large employment groups and who have been trained in one particular trade or have one particular set of skills. What we as a government need to do is to look at new initiatives that will cover and pick up these people.I am on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. It is interesting to see the trend that many employers have looked at in the past where they have particularly focused on staffing their businesses with people from the middle age bracket because they present themselves as stable, trustworthy and secure. Basically, in the past, our youth have been having trouble getting work while the middle aged have been picked up—no worries at all—owing to the fact that they are very well skilled and are secure, trustworthy and stable as well.The employers also looked at the three variables of attitude, competency and skills which the middle aged responded to without question, because they were brought up in an era which grew and worked to these variables. These attributes are prerequisites for any employment position, particularly in that order of attitude, competency and skills. What has happened is that the youth of today have understood this situation. They have changed and amended the way they portray themselves in the community and, accordingly, employers are now picking up more youth. We are now finding ourselves in the situation where some of the middle-aged people are having trouble getting work. Technology is also moving very fast.I believe we as a government have a responsibility to put initiatives in place that will help these individuals. I certainly believe that we can address this. We have the work for the dole scheme and green corps projects for youth, but we need to put in schemes that will now help middle-aged people. Financial incentives must be made available to employers, as the government have done with youth, so that employers might pick up the middle aged as well. It is a great initiative that we should look at. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills4931r5424931Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:004931O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I will just take a few minutes of the Main Committee's time this morning to indicate that the opposition is supporting the Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 . It is one of the elements of the package that the government announced in September last year called the AAA package, Agriculture—Advancing Australia. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you were in the chair yesterday for the discussion of another bill—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I do remember.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—that we touched on this particular bill. The point I was making is that I think it is highly representative of what I call the attempt to deceive the rural sector that the government had actually produced something remarkable and different in the AAA package, because this farm management deposits bill, as it is now presented, effectively replaces the old income equalisation deposits and farm management bond schemes which were there under the previous Labor government to assist farmers.They had two key roles. One was an income averaging role. That meant that farmers, when they had surplus profits in a year and which would have resulted in a high tax yield, could actually average their income over other years by placing the surplus money in these deposits, and it was not taxed until it was taken out, and the applicable tax rate would be that in the year in which it was taken out. I remember when we introduced these schemes in the 1980s. They were used in the sport area, including the horseracing industry. There were a number of industries saying to the government at the time, `Our people have high yield years and low yield years. We need some kind of income averaging situation so we can level out the tax.' And that was introduced, along with farm management bonds which were a further development in that. They were more intended to encourage farmers to provide some funds for a bad year, and it amounts to the same thing. But one was income averaging in the sense of high years versus lesser years. The other was to encourage farmers to actually put aside some money for a good year to use particularly in times of hardship. If a hardship situation were presented to DPIE, the funds could be drawn out and the tax rate that applied was the rate at the time—which often in a hardship year was zero because the farm income was below the taxable rate.That system has been working. It suffered a lot of criticism during the latter years of the Labor government and the new government pledged it would overhaul this and come in with a brand new scheme that really worked for farmers. The fact is that basically every criterion that applied in the former schemes has been rolled into this one farm management bond. Having studied it closely, I can only see one difference: it has been privatised. The farm management bond can now be held with a bank, a credit union or a local approved financial institution instead of being held by DPIE and Treasury. That is the only difference. I do not have any problems with that.The system has also been marginally amended to take account of the fact that a person placing funds in a private sector bond or private sector coupon will receive a slightly higher interest rate than that which is paid by Treasury and, therefore, the interest on a farm management bond is 100 per cent taxable. Under the previous scheme, a certain amount of the interest investment was exempt from tax to take account of the fact that the interest rate paid on a Treasury bond was lower than would be received on a commercial bond. But the net effect is that it is the same for the farmer.So why would I take any objection to this? Of course, I would not take any objection. It is basically identical to what was provided before—and that was the key to the points I was making yesterday which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will remember the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) took some exception to. I was making the point that most of the components of the AAA package when sectioned out and studied amount to a rebadging of Labor's former programs; even the amounts provided for them are the same, as was confirmed by the National Farmers Federation. But the minister took great umbrage at my pointing that out.I might also just read into the record for him a point I made during the discussion yesterday that relates to this. I was talking about the fact that some of these programs will in the end require extra funds or some may not be drawn down as much as was expected. I think the budget allocation for the farm management deposit scheme is probably overstated. That is not a good thing. I am simply saying that I expect farm incomes to be down in this financial year and possibly in the next financial year compared with the estimates at the time. Therefore, the amount of surplus cash to be left over and placed in these bonds will be probably lower than anticipated.The point about it too is that it is the higher income farmers who will actually have the funds to put in this scheme and therefore attract the 20c in the dollar tax rate if they are able to leave the funds there for 12 months or more. That is where the benefit really lies. I was making the point that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) is not overly sympathetic to the position of the farm sector when these things come back to the budget table for one reason or another. I quoted a reference from the Financial Review, and I saw the minister looking at me in a strange way, as though I had come from Mars, and thinking, `What on earth is he talking about?' The reference I gave him was 4 September last year and the point I was making was that the Treasurer was on the record as saying that none of us should get too excited if the farm sector takes a bit of a hit from El Nino or the Asian downturn. He said:If the El Nino effect continues as it looks at the moment, you would expect it to have an effect on farm product. Farm product, however, is not a huge part of GDP.'In other words, `We will not get too excited and we will not worry too much about its effect on the government's forecasts or the government's budgets because farm product is not a huge part of GDP.' That was an article from the Financial Review of 4 September last year.If the minister can get the Treasurer to have a look at that and review his attitude on the importance of agriculture to the Australian economy, I will be grateful for it. In the meantime, if he does not do anything about that, I will keep on making the point. That is the battle he has got. He has got to get into that cabinet room and have these battles with the Treasurer, who really does not take agriculture all that seriously. With those few comments, I will leave it at that and indicate that we are supportive of this legislation.10:07:004932Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 is an extremely important initiative on the part of this government. It provides for a scheme which will allow farmers to deposit funds in a commercially held farm management deposit and have no tax payable until the year the deposit is withdrawn. This scheme is an important component of the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia initiative because it is a risk management tool. It is not anything to do with tax avoidance. It will allow farmers to set aside pre-tax income earned in the good years to give them some cash, the reserves that they need, when they inevitably have the lean years.Of course, I speak strongly in favour of this bill because in my electorate of Murray the agricultural sector underlies the economic and social wellbeing of all of the population. Even though we are, in fact, drought proofed in most of Murray because much of the electorate is irrigated, we have the same fluctuations in prices, output and profit, and I will give a couple of examples. In the heart of the Goulburn Valley and the Murray Valley where we have irrigation water supplied annually, we recently had the apple and pear fire blight scare. This slashed the incomes of the pome fruit industry, reducing their profits for that year—in the cases of some individual farmers by $60,000 to $600,000. The next year, their profits were back to what they normally expect. Likewise, with the anthrax scare, beef and dairy producers were doing well one year but then, out of the blue, an anthrax outbreak meant that their incomes suddenly plummeted.Across the other half of the electorate is the Mallee region, the wheat growing country. As every Australian knows, a wheat grower's profits are very much determined by whether it has rained or not. As well, however, the international price situation fluctuates so, through no fault of their own, wheat growers may have a superb crop of the quality that is demanded on the international market but, because of international trade interference with perhaps another country deciding to dump wheat into the markets that we have traditionally held, the wheat grower's income may be substantially less than they anticipated. They need a cash reserve for those very bad years.In the past, what has often happened in the very good years when there has been a surplus of cash generated, because of our tax system the farmer has been obliged to go and buy a piece of equipment or some more land to make sure that all of their hard-earned income is not sent off to the tax office. That does not leave them with the cash reserve for when, inevitably and invariably, they have a downturn. It also means that it militates against farmers considering contracting to replace their capital equipment needs, for example bringing in contracting harvesters. A lot of our farms have extraordinarily expensive equipment that is only used for a month or two in the year because of the way our tax system has bitten when they have had that better year.This particular amendment bill will create a farm management deposit scheme. It is anticipated it will be of great value to all primary producers across Australia. The accountants are already saying that this is a scheme that is long overdue, and they can see no downside. Certainly we do not have across Australia a huge proportion of our farmers generating the sorts of incomes that need to be tucked away in the good years for the bad but, even if it helps a substantial proportion of our farmers, that is well worth the scheme being put in place.In particular, let me name some of the major features of this scheme. It includes, of course, a limit on holdings in the scheme of $300,000 per taxpayer, fully tax deductible deposits in the year of deposit but taxable in the year of withdrawal. Companies, trust and partnerships will not be able to access FMDs. However, beneficiaries of trusts and individual partners of a partnership may make deposits. Interest will be payable on 100 per cent of the deposit. Eligibility is restricted to primary producers with a taxable non-primary production income of less than $50,000 in the year of deposit. Other than withholding tax in a 12-month minimum term for deposits, no withdrawal limits apply to the deposits.On withdrawal, 20 per cent of the amount withdrawn will be deducted for tax purposes, if a tax file number is supplied, otherwise top marginal rates will apply. Deposits must be held for 12 months. However, funds may be withdrawn at any time before this, but they will lose all their tax benefit. Interest is taxable in the year it is earned. It cannot be automatically rolled into the deposit, but it may be deposited itself, up to the $300,000 limit. Deposits must be a minimum of $1,000 and withdrawals must be a minimum of $1,000, or the balance of the deposit. There are no transaction limits, so long as the balance is $300,000 or less.Financial institutions will pay an interest rate determined in the marketplace. Investors must specify only one institution at any one time with which to hold their FMDs. However, they will be able to change that institution at any time, and transfers between institutions will not incur withholding or other tax effects. Only prudentially controlled or government guaranteed institutions will be eligible to hold these FMDs, including banks, building societies and state government finance corporations, but not pastoral houses.This is a very important initiative. It is an important change from the old income equalisation deposit/farm management bond system. It is, in fact, if you like, a combination of those two schemes. We found that farmers did not access those two schemes. They were not producing the results that we need in Australia to give farmers some ability to manage their risk, to give them some long-term planning advantages.It is a high risk business being in agriculture today. We are export dependent, particularly in the food growing, manufacturing and exporting business. Our overseas markets, as I said before, are subject to interferences and management that makes it a business that you cannot guarantee year in and year out in terms of either your prices, your market access or your volumes to be supplied. This government has recognised that. It recognises the importance of agriculture in terms of its contribution to our gross domestic product. It is a scheme that, as the opposition has rightly said, cannot be seen to be anything but very good news. I strongly commend this bill to the House.10:13:004934Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—It always amuses me when members of parliament see very good news in government legislation. While I support this Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 , I do not think it goes very far and, in reality, I do not think it does very much. It would seem to me that the money would be better handled through taxation with the deposits held by the government, on which they paid the current rate of interest to give it full security.I am a little bit concerned about the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) where he says it is limited to farmers who have no more than $50,000 off-farm earnings. I am not quite sure whether this would include farmers who engage in contract work. If it does include them, I think this is an anomaly and it should be removed. Farmers who are engaging in rural contract work should not be included as non-primary producers, but that is something that will have to be left to detail. The problem is, of course, that, when you leave this to detail, the taxation department always puts the worst possible connotation on it.The fact is that we tend to bring these schemes in when there is not much scope for taking advantage of them. The whole of the rural sector is generally depressed, and farmers are not going to be in a position to put aside this sort of income to assist themselves. It is a pity that we do not bring in these schemes when the industry is buoyant. What happens is that the general public gets the idea that the rural sector has been greatly assisted when it has not. Of course, there are many other things the government can do.I believe that we should re-establish a development bank with the charter of the original development bank to go out and lend money to farmers long term, at reasonable interest rates, without full regard to security, based on their hard work, initiative and the integrity of the Australian people. This, of course, cannot work with the present Commonwealth Development Bank, which is nothing more than a grubby merchant bank—and has been for about 30 years. In fact, in a privatised system, it is probably ultra vires the company law for it to be operating at all, as the requirement under company law is for directors to maximise the income of the company for the shareholders.The Treasurer (Mr Costello) keeps talking about the low interest rate regime available to the community. This is generally not available to farmers. I have many farmers who are currently paying 12½ per cent interest. I would like the Treasurer to explain just how this can be when he tells us interest rates are low. The reason is that there is a real premium put on the farms by banks, and, in many cases, the worst offender is the Commonwealth Development Bank, which has locked people into long-term loans at interest rates way above the market.The previous speaker, the honourable member for Murray (Mrs Stone), talked about some of the other problems with the rural sector. She mentioned fire blight. AQIS recommended that we allow in New Zealand apples because they felt the risk of bringing in fire blight was very small. Unless that risk is zero, they should not be allowed in. Nowhere in the world where fire blight is established has it ever been successfully eradicated. While it is true that apples are quite resistant to it, the new types of apples, which Australia has pioneered, are very susceptible to it and even more so are pears. The reason New Zealand does not have a pear industry is that it has fire blight. If fire blight were to get into the electorate of Murray, it would simply destroy the pear industry in Australia. Governments and government departments do not have the right to do these sorts of things.While talking about this bill, I want to talk about where governments clearly affect the interests of the rural sector on other issues. The pig industry is in crisis in this country, and they are not in a position to access this legislation. They simply are not going to have any earnings to set aside. Had we had this scheme in buoyant times things would be different, but that is not the case.Why are things in the industry so bad? I would submit simply because of government action. ABARE told the government that there was going to be a shortage of pig meat throughout the world and that we should increase production. They talked about the markets in Asia, which, of course, are so ephemeral. You would think that Keating was running that department. That market did not eventuate but increase in production did. Then the government said that it would allow in Canadian pork partly to keep pressure on, to keep the Australian pig producers honest and partly because they had signed this treaty which stopped us banning the import. ABARE predicted that in the first year 3,900 tonnes would come in. In fact, 12,000 tonnes came in. One has to wonder, when the industry is so badly affected by actions and forecasts of the government, why the government does not have a responsibility to compensate, to make good the results of their actions.We are told that we have a level playing field. Quite clearly, we do not. Let us get this straight: it is not Canadian pork coming into the country; it is American pork. It is coming in from ConAgra farms in America, going across the border to ConAgra plants in Canada and coming out to ConAgra agents here. Quite clearly, as a result of these trade agreements which the previous government signed, but it was fully supported by this government, we are supporting multinational companies at the expense of the interests of our own producers. I think that is a scandal.If we were to have a level playing field, I believe that we should make the Canadians send in whole pig. We are told that we cannot bring in whole pig because there is disease in the bone. Disease in the bone! If there is disease in the bone, how do we stop it going from the bone to the meat? Let us review that argument all over again. As a fall back position, let us say, `Okay, bring in the whole boned pig.' This will not occur because they can get more for the sirloin in North America than they can get here. They are attacking Australia with leg meat, which is Australian prime meat where it is not so in the United States and Canada. So they clearly have a big advantage.There is no level playing field. I believe, very strongly, that to make it level we should insist that they bring in the whole pig, not just selected portions. But that is unlikely to happen where governments in this country show far more interest in treading the world stage and abiding by GATT than they do in the interests of our own farmers. I just wish that some of our ministers could go to France and get bitten by some French politicians so that there are people who will look after the interests of our farmers.This bill is a feel-good bill in many ways. It is simply not going to achieve very much. Unless we address those other issues which I have mentioned, nothing substantial will happen in the rural sector.Let us look, too, at orange producers. Orange producers are not going to be able to take advantage of this. This industry is in crisis. It is interesting to see that the government has put great stress on the fact that the National Farmers Federation supports this legislation. Well, who is the National Farmers Federation? Whom do they represent? They certainly do not represent rural producers. NFF clearly stands for no family farms. These people are entirely imbued with the rational economic theory. Their advice to government was, `There are winners and losers. You can sacrifice the orange producers in the interests of the beef, wheat and wool producers.' Those beef, wheat and wool producers are my constituents, and they are not going to be better off one iota if you kill the orange industry. They are, in fact, going to be worse off because what you do is you contract the whole rural vote. That has to be realised. Let us face reality. We only produce half our requirements of orange juice so we have to import. It was not Brazilian farmers bringing in concentrate to Australia; it was American agribusiness. They wanted to flood the market to kill the whole industry. They knew that once the trees were out they would never be planted again. But the rational economists that seem to inhabit government these days seem to have the view that you pop trees in the ground, pull them out and pop them back in again. It is simply not like that. If you kill that industry, those trees will never grow up. Bear in mind that we only produce half that juice because we had a spate of pulling trees out some years ago. We have been saved in the short term by the drought in Brazil, which, of course, is a good thing for us. It makes me think that perhaps there is a god after all. So much needs to be done for the rural sector. When you kill the rural sector, when you drive people out of the country towns into cities, the cost imposed on society is enormous. There is not one person who goes to a capital city that does not require new infrastructure, but our cities are bursting at the seams, yet we are leaving all that infrastructure in country towns underutilised. There can be no sense in that. You would have to be a rational economist to perceive any. I support this bill. As I say, it does very little. In reality, it certainly is not a bill that can be accessed by farmers at the present time. I am hoping there will be an upturn in improving conditions. One thing has to be realised by this nation, and that is this: there is not one capital city of Australia that lives on its intrinsic worth. Every one lives by sucking the lifeblood out of the rural sector and the mining sector. They work on the wealth of the hinterland. That is what keeps Australian cities going, not intrinsic value. That has to be realised because, if that is not, the continual dichotomy will grow in Australia between city and country people. If that is allowed to continue, this country cannot survive because it cannot survive as a nation divided against itself.10:26:004937Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 . I note some of the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I would hope that this is not a nation divided against itself but a nation where city and country can work together. Under this government we will have the opportunity to perhaps extend the arms from the city to the country and from the country to the city and bring people together to benefit. I put to you too that this government for the first time has really taken on the concerns of country people through the Agriculture—Advancing Australia policies. We have addressed ourselves to some of the issues that are really affecting country Australia today, particularly in my area of Gippsland, in the seat of McMillan and country Victorians generally.It is not denied by anybody that we are faced with a drought at the moment that runs from central New South Wales right down through the Monaro into Gippsland and down into Tasmania. This has caused enormous hardship for communities, but the member for Kalgoorlie actually denies that there has been restructure going on in rural communities. Since the 1960s the change in transport, the change in information technology and the change in the way we communicate with one another has changed the whole face of the farming community. I would agree with the member for Kalgoorlie and say this: the soul of the cities is in the country. We rely on country people for the national soul. They look to country people for the expression of everything that is Australian. I do feel that locally in the seat of McMillan, and I know the member for Kalgoorlie expresses that generally in his approach to his politics. I can accept that there are those that are passionate about how we go about holding together our country communities.There is the thrust of the government's approach and the thrust of the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in his response to the pork industry that the member raised. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) yesterday said that he agrees that there is no level playing field but there is a minefield out there that we are having some success in addressing ourselves to. There is the good work done by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) in bringing all these pieces together into one cohesive policy where the previous government failed to do that. There are farmers right now in parts of my area who are in great distress because of this drought. We have gone through a shocking period for dairy farmers. We are automatically restructuring the beef industry throughout the whole of Gippsland because of the size of properties, because of the structure and make-up of our communities and the withdrawal of services caused by the reduction in population throughout our country areas. We have to find ways to address ourselves to keeping rural communities together. Part of Agriculture—Advancing Australia is to put in a program to support rural communities, which we have done. With the granting of drought exceptional circumstances in Gippsland it has been proved for the first time ever that we are not drought proof, unlike the electorate of Murray, and that the great lush land of Gippsland can be affected by the lack of rain or by the excessive amount of rain and then the withdrawal of that rain.Under the government's proposal for exceptional circumstances for farmers, we look at a number of issues including meteorological conditions, agronomic and livestock conditions, water supplies, the impact of production, environmental impacts, the impact on farm income, sale and significance of the events, and other forms of support being provided or which are available from Commonwealth or state government agencies. In combination with the state government, we were recently able to deliver a $3.7 million package to farmers in Gippsland. That package has been extended to East Gippsland and has also been extended further into the Monaro. This is the first time government has had to turn and react in these parts of Australia. My concerns are that we put proposals and programs in place—such as the bill before us, that will at least give some opportunity for farmers and producers across Australia to address the issues, particularly of good years and bad years. That is what the bill does in this instance. The member for Kalgoorlie also addressed the issue of farmers in contract work. I will take up the proposal that he put forward, because a tremendous number of the farmers in Gippsland are also contractors. I would not like the nature of their work to prevent them accessing this program because, without that contracting out work which is often done for other farmers, it would make a mockery of the opportunity for this program to work effectively on behalf of farmers. But we must not forget in that process that, in this global economy, we have a number of areas in which Australia has to address itself to the whole of the issue rather than to one individual grouping at any given time. We have to look at the beginning of our pork exports and the fact that we have begun to export citrus products. Our beef markets need to be protected. We as a government have put in labelling legislation which will also help the pork industry and there is, too, of course, the anti-dumping legislation that only this government has been able to provide. This is important legislation not only for the pork industry but also for the paper and pulp industry. It gives a clear indication for Australia as to what is a product of Australia and what is made in Australia. It is only this government, through the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), that has been able to deliver on behalf of Australian producers. Today, with this farm management bill, we have taken the opportunity to deliver, once again, on a promise to rural Australia and particularly rural Victoria. It is one of the many lists of core promises that this government under the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has delivered and will continue to deliver. But it is not just about legislation; it is not just about economics; it is about people. This Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, of all of the legislation that we have been addressing, is directly about people: people on the farms, people in regional areas, people that have a real concern about their future and about the generations to come. Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, you would know from your own area that there is a concern out there as to where rural people are going to be in 10, 15 and 50 years time. Are we going to have the family farms that are currently there? Will there be further rationalisation? Will there be the opportunity for their children to stay? Some of the information that we have read says that the numbers of people between the ages of 24 and 34 in country areas right across Australia are diminishing. We have an ageing community with some 14 per cent of the community made up of children. The income in the rural areas is no longer the dream, where city people often used to see farming life as giving a large income and a great lifestyle. That is certainly not the case across Gippsland. We are constantly addressing ourselves to the issues that affect people on those farms, in those communities and in those small businesses. In another place today I will be addressing some of the issues that have impacted so badly on regional Australia.I will remind this Main Committee chamber of one of those issues; that is, after the 1993 election campaign the taxes in this country were increased. The wholesale sales taxes were increased to the tune of $4 billion and the taxes that were going to be reduced to those people by another $4 billion. The previous government actually cost every person $444. That was done by stealth. It was unfair. There was no compensation for it. Who paid it? Teachers in rural communities, farmers, women trying to manage the household budget, low income families in country areas—all of those regional people. They are the ones that paid it. They suffered it.Mr Melham interjecting—MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—No, I am talking about the inconsistency and the shameful performance of the former federal government in 1993. These are real people out there that had to pay a real unfair cost when they were previously promised that there would be no tax increases. So never ever talk to me about social justice. I remember a member sitting in this House giving his maiden speech on social justice. Every time he mentioned social justice, he had his bus load of people in the parliament—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—There were four bus loads.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—at that time clapping him. I tell you what: it must have been shameful for that person at that time to actually sit there and claim social justice after increasing taxes by 10 and 20 per cent to the poorest parts of our community, which is often in rural Australia where they do not have the service, they do not have the transport, they do not have the opportunities and they do not have the educational opportunities. Those people were never, never compensated.Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—Anybody from the gallery who is able to shout across this table should be dealt with very effectively and quickly.I have taken my time, but I just remind the committee that any time anybody from the previous government gets up and talks about social justice, we can just tell them that Agriculture—Advancing Australia is what social justice is about. The gold card for veterans is what social justice is about. Social justice is about what this government has delivered, which is the reduction of our debt, and fairness in our whole approach. What you will see from the government is one of the fairest packages that this government has ever put together.Mr Melham interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! The honourable member for Banks knows the procedures on making contributions to the chamber. I ask him to observe them.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—I am very happy that the member for Banks is in here because on every occasion I raise social justice I would like to have the member for Banks in the room. I want to drive home to the member for Banks and his fellow members—one of whom has just arrived—the message that, if they want to talk about social justice, I am going to drive it home to them on a daily basis, day after day after day, because what they did not deliver after 13 years of government was social justice for rural Australians. I look forward to taking up the cudgels again on another occasion.10:39:004940Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—It is with some pride and satisfaction that I rise to speak today to support the Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 , which is delivering yet another coalition promise. It will be a cost to revenue of approximately $20 million but, in effect, it amalgamates the old income equalisation deposit scheme and the farm management bond scheme, neither of which were working well. They were hardly used at all. They were so structured that they were virtually ineffective. In fact I will never forget that, when the Labor Party came to power in 1983 in the month of March—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It was a very good year.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—It was a terrible year for the farming community and primary industry generally because, two months down the track, in May, the Labor Party totally gutted almost every measure that the farming community enjoyed, one of which was the IED scheme. That scheme never worked after that. Peter Walsh was one of the driving forces in getting rid of that scheme. He is a former Labor member whom I do have some regard for and I enjoy reading his weekly comment in the Financial Review , but he did make a mistake in this area because that scheme was put in place to allow farmers in good years to provide for themselves in bad years, rather than calling on the taxpayer. After that scheme was done away with, some years down the track the Labor Party realised their terrible mistake when we had difficulties with the wool industry. They fiddled, prodded and poked with various measures to try to reinstate it, but none of them worked.I am pleased to say that, after 13 long years of Labor and within two years of a coalition government coming to power, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) has introduced a workable scheme back into the parliament. The farm management deposit scheme will be run by financial institutions, which is another refreshing change. Rather than the deposits being held by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, something I was always uneasy about, they will now be held by financial institutions.The FMDs will be a tax linked management tool and they will be much more commercially attractive than IEDs and farm management bonds ever were. They allow farmers to deal with the uneven income streams that are inevitable with agriculture—not only inevitable but very common, particularly over the last decade or so. Farmers will be able to set aside money in the good years—and we hope they return soon for the mainstream primary industries—for when farm income is low. So farm management deposits are to be used to complement other risk management strategies, such as putting away fodder in reserves, water conservation, diversification of income streams, forward selling and all these other tools they have had.Drought, very sadly, has been very common particularly in eastern Australia over the last 10 years or so and it has been a tragedy for primary producers, having gone through wool price collapses, beef price collapses and grain price collapses. Just about every commodity has gone through difficult times and they have been exacerbated by drought. It almost seems that everything that could go wrong has gone wrong in the farming industry at some stage. The farmers have not been able to hold on to those dollars that they have been able to earn in the good years to provide for themselves in the bad years.As the previous speaker, the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent), so eloquently put it, the pork industry is going through a very difficult time at the moment. All pork producers are losing money. The cost of pork production in this country is about $2 a kilogram in round figures, and they are getting at best $1.50 to $1.80 a kilogram. The new World Trade Organisation arrangements, whereby pork can come in from Canada, is worsening the situation, on top of the depressed world prices, on top of the depressed domestic prices and on top of consumers switching to beef because of the low prices. Fortunately, we have seen a sharp devaluation of the dollar over the last two, three or four weeks in particular—in fact, in recent months by 20 per cent against the Canadian dollar—and I think that will help our pork producers.The government has brought in other measures, of course, such as labelling laws. We have got those right after 13 years of the previous government doing nothing. We are addressing the freight costs and we have got interest rates down, so I think all of those things will help the pork industry—as they will help other primary industries as the months roll by.The farm management deposits will be available commercially through banks, credit unions, building societies and the like, but those other institutions which do not have the correct prudential requirements—such as pastoral houses—will not be available for these deposits. That is no reflection on pastoral houses, but I think the government has made the correct decision in this instance.The banks, particularly as time rolls by and they have some experience with managing this money, will be able to offer the farmers more choice and flexibility with what they do with that money. The interest that is earned will be at market rates on 100 per cent of the deposit. Under the old IED scheme, under the Labor Party, it was offered on only 61 per cent, and, on the farm management bonds that the Labor Party brought in, it was offered at 100 per cent for the first half of the total deposit limit—namely, 100 per cent on $150,000—and then it was reduced to 80 per cent on the next $150,000. Under our scheme, quite generously and properly, because it will simplify the administration of it, it will be on 100 per cent of the full $300,000.It is limited to $300,000 per taxpayer. So, in a farming family, if you have a couple in a partnership, or whatever, each individual will be able to deposit up to $300,000. If, for example, a husband and wife with a son struck a good year, as sometimes happens in the grain industry in the broadacre farming, they could put away up to $900,000, almost $1 million. So it makes it a very generous scheme in that regard.I acknowledge, in saying that, that there will be very few farmers in that position who will be able to put away such an amount of money; nevertheless, the opportunity will be there. If you do get a windfall year, as does happen in some primary industries from time to time, it mainly all goes through tax. It messes up your tax averaging for the next five years, and it is almost impossible to hold on to. So the reward for the effort that you put in over the bad years can never come to you, even when you get a good year.When you put the money in, it will not be taxable in the year that you deposit it. That, of course, is the beauty of the scheme: it will be taxable when it is withdrawn. Anybody who already has money in IEDs and FMBs can transfer, without any penalty whatsoever, that money into farm management deposits as soon as they start up.There will be certain limitations. For example, under the old farm management bonds, if you had an off-farm income of in excess of $50,000, you could not take advantage of these schemes. We have decided to keep that requirement, which I think is quite proper. So, if your non-primary production income is greater than $50,000, you will not be able to participate in this scheme, and I see nothing wrong with that.When you put deposits in, you cannot sort of put them in on 30 June and take them out on 1 July to avoid tax. You will have to put them in for a minimum of 12 months, unless you can demonstrate particular hardship. Again, I think that is a proper provision. Also you may lodge any moneys with only one financial institution, so you cannot have them scattered around—you will always get the odd person who will try to hide what they have put away—but you can change from one financial institution to another, if you can demonstrate good reason to do so.When you withdraw, of course, there will be a 20 per cent withholding tax in the first instance, which is adjusted up or down when you finally pay your income tax. But that 20 per cent can be varied in times of hardship and could be waived in times of hardship. Of course, if later down the track when you do come to pay your tax at the end of the financial year it is seen that you have made a mistake in your calculations, there will be no penalty conditions applied to that. I think that is a generous and sensible provision, put in place by the government. There will, of course, be a $300,000 per taxpayer limit, as I have said. Companies, trusts, partnerships, et cetera, cannot participate in this scheme. However, any individual who is a member of a partnership or trust can participate in this scheme as an individual. Again, that is a proper provision.Overall, this is very well thought out. It is quite simple. It is relatively generous, and it has been done that way for proper reasons so that the scheme will work. I did compliment the minister for the wide consultation that he engaged in over the last 12 to 24 months before he brought this bill to the House. The coalition, in the short time we have been in government, has rapidly addressed many of the farming problems that we have inherited. Sadly, we are in a situation in this country today where 70 per cent of farmers in our proud farming community that made this country what it is are earning less than $20,000. That is an incredible situation when the average wage is of the order of $35,000 a year, I think. Some 70 per cent of our farmers who have made this country what it is today earn less than $20,000, and many of that 70 per cent are on negative incomes.This week I have been getting letters across my desk from pork producers, and they bring this fact home to me sharply. One fellow wrote to me only yesterday saying he had to borrow another $150,000 because his income will be many tens of thousands of dollars in the red this year. Even though he is contributing probably in excess of $100,000 of export income and on the domestic market—he is producing something worth while for the country—he is running a negative income of several tens of thousands of dollars and has had to borrow, yet again. That is a very sad situation indeed.But the coalition has done many things. We have straightened out the Austudy scheme to a great degree for country people. We have increased the ICPA allowances. We have given people in remote areas who cannot make an untimed local telephone call a $160 rebate each year, and I think we will improve that as the months roll by. We guarantee anyone in a remote area that they will receive at least two mail deliveries a week. We have put in place things like the family restart scheme. We have put more generous provisions in place for the exceptional circumstances drought assistance.I well remember that, in my own electorate in the Cobar and Wilcannia areas and part of the Nyngan rural lands protection board, the previous government would not have those areas declared. No sooner were we in government than we got those areas declared and at least put bread on the table for the families in those areas that are contributing to Australia's income.We have put generous provisions in place, even in the last budget of a fortnight ago, for land care. We have done everything humanly possibly to straighten out the horrific problems of native title in this country. I know native title is off the agenda at the moment, but it is still out there in my electorate. There are 60 to 70 projects held up in the western division of New South Wales because the opposition, through their bloody-mindedness, will not pass it through the Senate. It is a tragedy. It is costing hundreds of jobs in the bush, including Aboriginal jobs.The Cobar Archery Club and the Broken Hill Field and Game Club could not even renew their leases, for heaven's sake. It is a shocking situation. A film crew wanted to go to Broken Hill to film, which would have provided $150,000 wages in the first week. They were turned away. So sad things like this are happening, which we are doing our best to address. This bill we are talking about today is part of that package of restoring sensible provisions for the bush, and I compliment the government on it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—We are all hoping this will be a good season for primary producers.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You are in the chair. You are supposed to be independent.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am. I said `all' of us.10:53:004943Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—in reply—It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), my parliamentary colleague and electorate neighbour. I am sorry that we are not going to see you at our border town of Hungerford, on the border of New South Wales and Queensland, and almost on the South Australian border, tomorrow for the field day. I will be there, and I will be singing your praises.It is a pleasure to sum up for the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 , because this is really a great initiative of this government. I acknowledge the hard work that went into this by our minister who really has gained a tremendous tool for the farm sector to use. Had it been in place under the previous administration many primary producers in Australia today would be in a much better position, having been able to conserve their own cash reserves in better times, but, unfortunately, under Labor the scheme was totally gutted and was not tax effective. It certainly was not attractive, and that is borne out by the levels of deposits in the existing schemes.The member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) raised an issue in relation to contractors who may use their own farm equipment for, say, harvesting or hay making. I will not give an answer to the member for Kalgoorlie, but I will ensure that the minister does respond to this particular query relating to contractors.The contribution of the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), since he has become the shadow minister responsible for this great industry of agriculture in Australia, shows little understanding of the situation in rural Australia, so that often we have seen in the parliament amendments moved by the opposition which really show a total lack of understanding of what the bill is trying to achieve.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—This isn't a self-description, is it?YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—No. He has embarrassed himself. He has embarrassed the Labor Party by moving such amendments, because they are quite contrary to the intent of what the government is trying to achieve. This just demonstrates that the Labor Party has no-one on the other side of the House who understands agriculture, nor the needs of a modern agriculture sector in Australia.The Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 establishes the farm management deposit scheme, which is one of the most important elements of the government's integrated strategy to build a competitive, sustainable and profitable farm and rural sector. The rural sector is a vital part of our Australian economy. It accounts for a major share of Australia's exports and provides the basis for this nation's value adding food and fibre processing industries. However, the rural sector has faced unprecedented change in recent years, bringing new challenges and opportunities through globalisation of markets and international trade reform.The sector also has had to face devastating climatic conditions in some parts of the country and declining terms of trade. This has pushed many farm businesses in the rural sector to a very low point. Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, I know that, in your electorate, you are well aware of the plight of many farmers and the people in your own community. Many, tragically, in my own electorate and in many parts of rural Australia have not survived.Much has already been done by the government to position rural Australia to succeed in the years ahead. Of particular importance have been our efforts to return the federal budget to surplus, and the ongoing reforms, which have helped create the solid economic foundation supporting the maintenance of low inflation, and, very importantly for all Australians, continuing low interest rates. Lower interest rates have helped produce a situation which has put Australian farmers in a very competitive position. The Australian dollar is making our exports more attractive and also encouraging growth in our vital export industries.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Show us your stuff: tell us about the current account.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—It is just economic illiteracy that we can hear from the other side of the House. I remind the other side of the House that when the Labor Party was in government business indicator rates were 20.5 per cent. To service their debts and to meet the general business of living costs, lower interest rates have been a major benefit to our farm sector and all Australians.MF4COBBMr Cobb—People were leaving the banks under them.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—Absolutely. The benefits of managing the economy have also put this nation in a very sound position to deal with the fallout from the Asian economic crisis. However, more is needed to take Australian agriculture into the future. The bill is about positively helping farmers towards financial self-reliance. The farm management deposit scheme is a key plank of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package and delivers on a major commitment given by the government prior to the last federal election. The scheme is a tax linked risk management tool that builds on the previous IED scheme and farm management bond scheme. However, the farm management deposits are an important risk management tool to help farmers deal with the uneven income streams so common in agriculture. Although they are not a panacea for the management of the many risks faced by farmers, farm management deposits will enable them to hold over pre-tax income from years of good cash flow and also be able to be drawn down in the years when additional cash flow is needed. They are a tax enhanced savings tool and can be used as a complement to other risk management strategies such as developing fodder and water reserves, financial planning, diversification, insurance, forward selling and also futures contracts. The previous schemes were amended after extensive consultation with rural industries and the financial sector, including the Australian Bankers Association. The initiatives have been receiving widespread endorsement from key farming bodies such as the National Farmers Federation. The new scheme will also be much simpler from a taxation perspective, and that is important.All deposits will now be treated the same way and will have a 100 per cent investment component on deposits totalling up to $300,000. Producers will no longer have to determine at the time of the deposit whether they wish to make an IED or an FMB deposit. The scheme is more appropriately delivered by the private sector where banks will compete for the deposits. That is also particularly important because it will, in many cases, encourage the banks to stay out there in rural Australia enabling them to attract these deposits. So it will be an incentive for our banks to stay in rural Australia. Any participating financial institution must be prudentially controlled or have a government guarantee so that eligible participants will include banks, credit unions and also building societies. This will ensure the security of the deposits held by financial institutions, including the taxation component of the deposits. In addition, the bill and regulations will specify a range of reporting requirements to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to ensure the accountability of the scheme. In the commercial arena, there will be a range of financial institutions offering farm management deposits. Each institution will have specific products so depositors will have much more flexibility in the types of FMDs they can choose. For example, farmers may have a range of deposits with different terms and conditions or they can change to another institution for different products. This means that farm management deposits should appeal to a larger number of primary producers as they better tailor the investment decisions to their particular circumstances. Currently, there are only two standardised products. They are the IED scheme or a farm management bond scheme. The availability and accessibility of the farm management deposits will improve as they will be offered through financial institutions which have substantial networks including in rural areas instead of being administered by a unit in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy here in Canberra. What this means is that producers will have closer contact with the managers of their funds and should find it simpler to make withdrawals and deposits with more personal explanations to clarify the terms and conditions.If farmers are in financial hardship, they may also apply to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy for a deduction exemption certificate. If the department agrees that the farmer is in serious financial difficulty, the financial institution will not have to deduct—and this is important—20 per cent of the deposit on withdrawal. Financial difficulties will be assessed by the department against criteria similar to those which currently apply to the farm management bonds. Mr Deputy Speaker and to those on the other side of the House, I commend this bill to you because it is a tool that the farm sector will be able to use to great advantage.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—We're going to vote for you, Bruce. You're wrong, but we're going to vote for you.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—They always say that empty vessels make the most sound. This has been adequately demonstrated by the other side of the House.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! The two members on the other side who are making a lot of noise are on the list to speak shortly. They will get their opportunity. I call the minister. Standing order 55 requires him to be heard in silence.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—I thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It might be helpful if you tried not to provoke the other members.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—This bill presents an ideal opportunity to take rural Australia forward. I commend the bill to the House. We seek the support of the opposition.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I put the question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4946r5384946Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:07:004946Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I do not intend to take long with my contribution because the opposition supports the National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 . I will quote what the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) pointed out in his second reading speech, because I think it best summarises the bill:This bill complements the National Firearms Program Implementation Acts of 1996 and 1997 supporting a firearms buyback scheme in the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.. . . . . . . . .The bill provides for me—that is, the minister—to authorise payments for the purpose of providing compensation to firearms owners and dealers and for purposes directly connected to the compensation scheme and for implementation of licensing and registration schemes . . . The minister quite rightly says in his second reading speech that the national firearms program has received bipartisan support and he asks for that support to continue. I can indicate that that support will continue. The opposition does support this bill. It is appropriate; it extends the scheme to the territories that are named. I commend the bill to the parliament.11:08:004947Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—The National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 is just another example of legislation this parliament enters into without any real concern for its end result. It was not entered into for any reason other than to promote the image of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) as a strong leader.It is true that there was an incentive when a madman, Mr Bryant, allegedly killed all those people in Tasmania. I must say in passing that I cannot understand why the governments—the federal government and the state government of Tasmania—are opposing a royal commission into the events of Port Arthur. I think there are some unanswered questions there. With an event so significant we should have a full and thorough investigation. It is quite clear that Mr Bryant exercised an expertise with that gun that would have required a lot of training. I do not quite see how Mr Bryant acquired that expertise, but it would be a good thing if we could find out. What happened when this sad event occurred was that the Prime Minister's advisers in Sydney said, `Prime Minister, this is your chance to be seen as a strong leader—and to hell with the consequences.' It has been very divisive across Australia, as the National Party is about to find out in the Queensland election.If you look at the statistics since 1915 when records were first kept, the incidence of gun related violence in this country has been continually dropping; it is graphing downwards. Sadly, in the United States, it is going the other way at about two and a half times the rate of Australia. But, if you take out of contention just seven cities in the United States, the incidence of gun related violence in the United States is actually much lower than in Australia. Some of the states which have very low incidences actually allow people to keep concealable firearms. There are very low instances of assault.In Western Australia—I do not know the figures for other states but I am sure they are comparable—there has been an almost doubling of armed violence since this legislation came in. Do the government consider that this was a success? I am sure they do not but then they do not care because that was never the intention of the legislation. Its intention was to fulfil a desperate need felt by the Liberal Party at the time. The Labor Party was happy to follow it because the Labor Party always supports this sort of legislation. We are told what a great success the scheme was and that $500 million was raised with the Medicare levy. There is no doubt that far more lives would have been saved if that money had been put into the health system than is going to occur through this scheme. What has happened? People handed in guns that became illegal and then immediately went out and bought brand new guns that were expensive, adding to our current account deficit. So there has been a significant increase in the number of guns into Australia. Why is it that, for all the time that governments of either persuasion have had the power under the Customs Act to prohibit the entry of high-powered military rifles—they have always had that power—they have never taken any action? The sporting shooters do not require those guns. They have made that clear; they have said there should have been a ban on them. Those guns are basically inaccurate and are designed for killing people at short ranges. There is certainly no great need for them. We had a special category for military weapons, a very tightly controlled category, and there was never any trouble from people within that category. But the government had the power to act and it did not do it.I was talking to a gun dealer in Sydney who said, `Look, I didn't agree with that but everyone else is doing it, so business is business.' He told me that most of his customers are Vietnamese. If you check the records, very few AK47 guns and AK47 look-alike guns have been handed in by the Vietnamese community in Sydney. I will bet London to a brick on that. So those guns are still out there—the very guns that are probably the ones that cause most concern.You had the stupidity of the Prime Minister refusing to allow 12 gauge semiautomatic shotguns, self-loading shotguns, which were choked to allow only two shots, to be used in competition. It is an absolute absurdity. The Prime Minister said in the House that it was his advice that the mechanism could be reversed. You can make a whole gun in a workshop. I was out in western New South Wales not so long ago and actually saw and handled automatic pistols made by farmers who were angry about what has happened. The initiative of the Australian people will not be thwarted by this sort of legislation. It is just a very costly absurdity which has divided society enormously. This legislation extends the buyback provisions to the islands and territories surrounding Australia. The facts are these: home invasion is a fast growing crime. I think it is awful when you cannot feel secure in your own home. In France, home invasion is not heard of; in France, you are allowed to have a gun for defence in your own home. It is a policy of Australia First that we will continually seek to amend this legislation until the right of defence in your own home is conceded. It is, in my view, an inalienable right that should never have been taken from the people of Australia.Now let us look at another absurdity. The government banned the sale of self-loading .22 calibre rifles. Most murders and most deaths were caused by a single shot. One of the largest causes of death was suicide in the rural sector. Banning the guns is not going to stop the suicides; fixing the economy is going to do much more for that. The reason people are driven to suicide is absolute desperation. So what does the government do? It bans guns. Have you ever heard of anything so absurd?The truth is this. I have used a self-loading .22 to shoot rabbits commercially. If you are shooting rabbits commercially, it is probably the only calibre you can use and the only type of gun that will make your operation successful. I have also used a repeating rifle, a bolt action 243, to shoot kangaroos, and that gun is still legal. I know that I used to zero that gun at 200 yards and, if I could not put the whole magazine through a cigarette packet at 200 yards, I would readjust it. I could do far more damage with that gun than anyone could possibly do with a .22. That is the absurdity of this.But we are a dealing with a Prime Minister and a bureaucracy that do not understand. I will warrant that three-quarters of the bureaucrats and all of the attorneys-general did not know the difference between an automatic rifle and a self-loading rifle. They called them all automatics. The difference of course is that an automatic will keep firing while you have your finger on the trigger.We had this action taken as a feel-good action, as I said. It is interesting that, while the idea was very popular in Sydney, its popularity diminished as you got further from Sydney. I believe that, had our state premiers had the nerve to demand a constitutional referendum, this legislation would not have passed. It would have passed in New South Wales because of the all-pervading effect of Sydney, but it certainly would not have passed in Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and probably Victoria. But those premiers, in my view, sold out by not forcing it to a referendum so that the people of Australia could decide.One of the important reasons why we need to introduce into Australia the concept of a citizen initiated referendum is so the people can have a say and so that they are not continually subjected to decisions made by a government which they have no opportunity to oppose because both parties have the same policy. Bipartisan politics basically destroyed any concept of democracy in Australia, and it must be replaced by CIR.If you look at the situation in Australia, there was a great clamour from the Labor Party to do away with the appeals to Privy Council. What happened? When there were appeals to Privy Council, our High Court was arguably the best appellate court in the world and I think it had a great record. But within a very short time after those appeals to Privy Council had been abolished, our High Court had become a bunch of social engineers. That is not the job of the High Court. It is a destructive process of government when the High Court is allowed to go down that way. It has gone down that path because of the vacuum left by the political parties.What I say is that citizen initiated referenda have the ability to reapply the intellectual vigour that was necessary to bring the High Court under control. It will be effective not only against politicians but against the judges and the bureaucrats. It is something we must have. I believe it will not often be used and it will be used decreasingly as these people realise the power of the people. I have faith in the people of Australia. I believe they can be trusted. It is quite clear from legislation like this that neither the government nor the opposition believe in the people of Australia.This legislation is indicative of a lot of stuff that comes into this parliament. It does no good, it is probably counterproductive and it costs. We have seen this cost. The government is admitting to this cost. The cost is significant. Had that money been put into new roads, it would have saved more lives. Had it been put into research, it could have saved more lives but, no, that was never the consideration. The concern was always to portray the Prime Minister as a great leader.When the present Prime Minister acceded to his position, I had faith in him. This was the first act that weakened that faith. Since then, I have seen successive acts from the Prime Minister which make me believe he is no longer worthy of support. It is about time this parliament got back to really representing the will and the feelings of the people of Australia. That cannot happen while we have legislation like this coming into the House, legislation which is supported by both parties and where there is no option for the alternative view to be heard.I know that I am wasting my time. This legislation is going to go through, but there will be a reckoning and I believe that reckoning will come in Queensland very shortly, where the people have already said, `We have had enough of this draconian government.' Believe me, if Mr Beattie is elected to government, it will not be because the people have faith in him; it will simply be because they have no alternative. The people of Australia are going to resort to putting governments in and out in quick succession and that is going to lead to the instability and possibly the anarchy that you have seen happening in Italy. I will not be supporting this legislation, but then it will not need my support, unfortunately, to pass.11:21:004949Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to thank the opposition for their bipartisan support for the National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 and I anticipate, as the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) does, that the bill will pass with that support. This bill actually provides for the Commonwealth to provide funds for the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island to implement the territories' surrender and buyback schemes in relation to firearms. It completes the buyback legislation across the whole of the Australian territories and it gives to the external territories the benefit of the buyback that has occurred throughout the rest of Australia in the months up to the middle of 1997.The member for Kalgoorlie has made a number of comments critical of the agreement reached on 10 May 1996 at the meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers Council on the uniform firearms laws and their effect. I do not propose to comment in detail on those. However, I can tell the member for Kalgoorlie that, if he has empirical evidence that there has been an increase in violence subsequently; if he has empirical evidence that there has been an importation of new guns at an increased rate since the uniform firearms laws; and if he has information relating to any particular community storing firearms illegally, I would like to see that.In relation to his suggestion that farmers have the capacity to make firearms that would not fit within the uniform firearms laws, that is undoubtedly true. If they do, in fact, exercise that capacity, as the member for Kalgoorlie would know, that would be illegal. The suggestion that the defence of the home with a firearm is an inalienable right is, in my view, unsustainable. I do not propose to say any more than that.He mentioned suicide in the rural sector. This is a matter of great concern to the government. It is a matter of great concern, I am sure, to all members of the House of Representatives, particularly those from rural and regional areas. There is a deal of research being done on that subject in a number of different places. One I am pleased to have been associated with in a former existence is the TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, and I know that the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) has in his department a considerable focus on that subject. Firearms are not the only method by which people commit suicide, but they are a significant method, and the available research has demonstrated it has an impact on the number of suicides.The suggestion that bipartisan support of a measure destroys democracy is interesting, but I think we have democracy in action with the member for Kalgoorlie indicating his opposing views. It seems to me that democracy is alive and well even if it has, for him, the unfortunate consequence of bipartisan support depriving his vote of a vital effect. There has been very little said about the actual bill itself and its relationship to the external territories. I do not need to add to what I said in the second reading speech, and I commend the bill to the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees495149514951Debate resumed from 19 November 1997, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the House take note of the paper.11:26:004951Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I am, in one sense, pleased to be able to speak on this report. In another sense, I feel the enormous responsibility that this generation bears towards our younger generation. One feels, I suppose, more concerned about an issue like youth suicide and general suicide, I might add, in the community when one is a parent. In my own case, I have two sons—one has just turned 21 and one is not long 18. Through all the trauma of last week when I resigned from the Liberal Party, the thing foremost in my mind, more than anything else, was the welfare of my 18-year-old son because he is one of those young people who is very much struggling with his identity, struggling with trying to get a job and struggling with a direction.As a parent, one feels an acute sense of concern at times about what is really going on in his mind, when I think that, at 18, I was three-quarters of the way through my apprenticeship. It was so easy to get a job in the 1960s, let us face it. When I left school at 15, I had an apprenticeship offered to me as a carpenter the Monday after I finished school on the Friday. I did not take it because I thought I needed a bit of a break from school. I was only 15, and I said, `No.' But, having returned to school for a brief few weeks for grade 11 the following year, I decided that school was not for me and I walked straight into an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner.Young people cannot do that today. That really is the core of the problem here. This is in no sense intended as a criticism of the report, but we have to look to the causes and the factors. The essential cause of this problem, the core reason perhaps, if I may say so, is the lack of employment opportunities for young people. I see it in my own electorate.I recall a very emotionally charged meeting just before the last federal election. Generally speaking, it was partisan political where people from one side were saying it was the other side's fault and the other side was saying it was the other side's fault. In the midst of that, the Salvation Army chaplain got up and said, `Look, the real problem around here is unemployment. That is the problem. Get the employment situation right, get these young people into work, get them a direction, get them a goal, get them some opportunity to work for a living and plan a future where they can look forward to meeting a girl, falling in love, getting married and having kids and a home. That is when you'll give them something to look forward to.'That was the opportunity that I had as a young person, but it is not the opportunity that my sons have, especially my No. 2 son—and I have two younger ones coming on. They do not have those opportunities. That is the concern of every parent and, I am sure, every parent in this House who has young children. What opportunities have we bequeathed to our young people? We need to come to terms with that challenge. We need to realise that that is the most fundamental thing of all—giving them a job, giving them something to aspire to, to move on to, and creating in their minds that a job is an honourable thing.There is a notion these days, which was not present in my day, that there is something wrong with working with your hands and that you really need to be in an office job somewhere, sitting before a computer, doing something that is more of a professional job. The emphasis is put on having a professional job. We have nurses going back to university instead of doing their time as apprentices on the hospital floor. They are in university, they do one year in the wards and they call themselves nurses. They are not the nurses of old.People say that you need an education to get on in life—the emphasis being that an education is something you learn from other people—and that that is the way ahead, as opposed to working with tools, digging with a pick and shovel. While that might be seen to be menial, at least it is achieving something. Even to dig a hole and put a post in or build a fence, while it is labouring work, is an achievement. There is a notion around that somehow or other that sort of work is not as good. That is inculcated into young people, and young people are turned off by that a bit. People say that they are lazy. I do not think they are lazy; they are just turned off a bit.There is a notion that you have to jump right up to the top from the very first job you have. I know that some young people quite clearly think that is where they should be starting, rather than at the bottom. Then there is another group of young people who are working for nothing, frequently for months on end, just to get work experience. I am glad to say that I have had a couple of such young people through my office. I am not glad to say that they were working for nothing—I gave them money at times when I could—but the fact is that they moved on to other jobs. I am pleased to have made a small contribution in my own electorate to help some local young kids to move on. One is now working for Boral in a good job, but he worked for me on and off for six months before that. We could all in our own small ways—and I am sure many members do—provide that sort of guidance. I get back to this very important concept that a job is more important than anything else.In the midst of all of this, there are a couple of other points I want to mention. People are feeling alienation from the system, too. That alienation is being reflected in Queensland. I know of people very close to me who are saying that they are going to vote for One Nation in the Queensland election. They are not racist. They are just sick of the system. They feel left out of the system. It is no good saying that anybody who is going to vote for One Nation is a racist. They are not racist; they are sick of the system.A message is going to be sent to our political leaders on Saturday week stronger than any message that has been received in recent years; I guarantee it. People are going to be shocked and surprised at what is going to happen in Queensland in a week and a half. I can only say that that will be as a result of alienation. We have to recognise that. Young people are saying, `I am going to vote for One Nation.' People who have never voted before are saying that, and they are saying that because they are alienated. They do not want a system that is leaving them out in the cold. They want a system that says, `We are going to do something for you. We are listening to you.' I wish they would listen to people who do provide a reasonable way ahead. Unfortunately, they do not see that. They see those people as part of the system that they want to rebel against; the system that has not given them a job, that has not given them a future. That is what we, as members of parliament, have to remember.Another relevant point is the element of family breakdown and another that was identified in the report is a lack of spiritual direction for kids. There is no spiritual direction. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of that. I do not want to sound like I am preaching at a Billy Graham crusade. If anyone needs converting, I do. But, believe you me, we had much more spirituality in our community when we were younger; we could turn to religious figures if we were in trouble.I remember the broadcaster Hayden Sargent, who was a minister in the Church of Christ. He used to run coffee shops and things like that for young people to give them spiritual direction. Now we talk about counselling services. While they are genuine, it is a yearning for spirituality that we are seeing. These kids have no direction. They have no-one to turn to. I think some of us should say that there is a God that they can turn to, and that they should be doing that.Another issue is family breakdown. Frequently, our laws are hastening family breakdown instead of trying to prevent it. Instead of trying to nurture the family, our laws seem to be in a mad rush to disintegrate the family. Overall, I think the picture this report paints is one that needs addressing. It is not just me who is saying that; a lot of people are saying that.In all sincerity, let us get something done about jobs. It is easy to say that, but why aren't we addressing that issue? As I have said before in this House, we need major capital works programs in this country to get these sorts of jobs going, to get the economy moving. Even if it means spending money to do that, the net result will be far better, and the social result from that sort of spending will prevent the costs associated with the downside—the absolute fortune spent on prisons and the dreadful impact of suicide on families.I commend the report, and I do recognise the members of this committee as genuine, decent people, trying to strive to come up with something that will help Australian society.11:37:004953Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise today to speak on the issue of youth suicide, an issue which affects many people throughout Australia, none more so than the residents of one of the towns in my electorate of Gilmore, the residents of Bundanoon. Before preparing to speak on this issue, whilst concerned, I knew little about youth suicide. But just recently I discovered my own electorate was amongst the worst affected and did not know how to do anything about it. I must admit that I thought twice about relating this story to the parliament. However, in deciding to do so, I felt that you, my colleagues, could also be affected by the tragedy that has occurred and which we must all face as community representatives.Bundanoon is a close knit rural community situated in the southern highlands. Its 1,800 residents have regular routines—working, visiting their families, relaxing in retirement, working for the community, meeting socially, looking after each other's children and each other, and lobbying the local council on issues they feel will affect them and their families. In fact, I am immensely proud of the residents of Bundanoon in the work they have achieved as a community. It was also my privilege to have served these residents as a former councillor of the Wingecarribee Shire and in my former role as tourism manager some years ago and now as their federal member. Bundanoon could be like any other rural community in Australia except the residents are reeling from the suicide of five people in recent months and possibly a sixth person in the neighbouring town of Exeter. This has left the town dazed and confused, asking why and searching for answers. To give other members a sense of what the community is going through, I would like to quote from a newspaper article which appeared in the local paper at the time of the first suicides. The paper stated:No-one knows for sure why sleepy Bundanoon has been hit with an extraordinary wave of suicides.The reason for one death was clear enough—the 77-year-old business man was in failing health. One other victim in his 30s was soon to be retrenched, but, apparently, was optimistic about his future.The youngest victim, 19, had a secure life and a bright future. He was nothing like the stereotyped young suicide victim. He was working with his dad in the family tree-clearing business and he was popular. He had prospects, money in the bank, and the support of his mum, dad and older sister . . . but none of that was in his mind when he killed himself.In Bundanoon there seem to be few answers.All victims were known to each other. Two were the best mates who took their lives just 11 days apart, yet so far there is no common link and it still remains a mystery. Hundreds of local residents gathered at the public meeting to discuss their feelings and concerns for their community. I commend the organisers for their initiative and the residents who attended for the bravery and care during such a difficult time for them.While it is recognised that not all the victims were young people, the impact of any suicide on family members, friends and even acquaintances and strangers in a small community can be enough to destroy their confidence and make them question their own judgments and lives. I do not believe that federal politicians have a role to play in intruding on the grief of the residents of Bundanoon. However, I believe we have a responsibility to do what we can to make sure it does not continue.As you are all aware, Australia has the fifth highest male suicide rate of all developed countries across all age groups with an average of 18 people in every 100,000 taking their own lives, a crisis in anyone's language. What was once a taboo subject to be ignored at all costs and certainly not mentioned in public is now one of the biggest killers of our young people. The recent Australian youth forum held in Canberra and attended by young delegates from all over Australia listed youth suicide as one of the top 10 issues facing young Australians today. Many of you would be aware of the recommendations which came out of that forum. However, I believe it is necessary to highlight some of them because this is the voice of young people talking in their own words.The underlying message was that greater education awareness programs were needed to reduce the number of young people who felt the need to take their own lives. The recommendations included continued government funding for essential suicide prevention services; ensuring adequate counselling was available in schools, universities and workplaces; implementing programs in the school curriculum which emphasise the importance of companionship, mentoring, communication, self-value and self-esteem; and increasing a positive image of young people in the media which is identified as being very important for improving the self-image young people have.One of the most interesting comments to come out of the youth forum recommendations on youth suicide was that society must learn to shift its focus from the material to the ethical and to emphasise values, not value, and to assist in lowering the unrealistic expectations which currently burden Australia's young people and which are seen as a direct contributor to youth suicide. As one young American youth worker commented at the forum:The thing I've noticed here in Australia is that kids are very down on themselves almost as if you train your kids that way like you're saying `Try and be the same as everyone else, don't excel, don't stand out, just get by.'The youth worker went on to say:Without the encouragement to achieve something, what can they do? Most rural kids don't have a hope. City kids are overloaded. Country kids are trapped—both feel the other location is the answer. Neither are right. Well meaning people who help them, particularly in the country areas, burn out after a few years.Already action is being taken by people in the community and I am fortunate enough to represent an electorate which is quick to help itself. Prior to the Bundanoon tragedies, a resident of nearby Burrawang was already working on a video which focuses on youth suicide. Film producer Jan Howe's video looks at ways of promoting high self-esteem in young people as well as ways to help others identify signs of suicidal depression. The video is unique in that it is aimed at youth helping youth and draws on a wide range of not only expert opinion but also youth experience which is vital to get the message across to all people in the community.In a recent review Jan Howe said that one of the most important things was harnessing the energy of young people to help other young people. She said:They want to lead, to do, to achieve. They say they want not only to make a difference but they want to be involved in making it happen.I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Jan for her initiative and to urge all members to support any efforts by Australians to combat this ever increasing epidemic.I would now like to take up the point on where we as individuals and as community representatives can improve the image that the community and young people have of themselves, because I think that is fundamental to helping young people look for an alternative to suicide. You can throw all the money in the world at the problem, but it will not improve the situation if the underlying issue is one of lacking a sense of purpose and vision. Through the media we get negative images of young people. This can only be described as a reflection of ourselves and the vision we are offering them for the future.According to Captain David Woodbury of the Salvation Army, hope is one of the biggest motivators which can lift a person out of despair. `If we are to reverse the alarming youth suicide rate,' he says, `then we must give young people something worth believing in, a conviction that the future will be better than now.' Many young people are cynical about their future and the society we have created for them by our decisions. This is something which I believe contributes to giving young people a very limited set of options and to leaving them feeling abandoned. In Australia today more than 2,000 deaths a year are recorded as suicide. In men aged 15 to 24, the rate is currently in the vicinity of 25 to 30 per 100,000 people. You would have heard many theories about why this is so: some of them will have considered the fact that young people are looking for attention in a world that moves too fast to make an impact; another would be that, as a society, we no longer have initiation rites for young men, so they take to challenging themselves and each other in extreme situations such as street racing and gangs. There is no simple explanation for the horrific youth suicide rate, except to say we have failed our young people. Since 1943, the youth suicide rate amongst men has risen while suicide amongst young women has remained relatively stable but still at an unacceptably high five per 100,000 people.A number of studies have been produced that identify high risk groups such as those with a mental illness, rural and remote residents and indigenous Australians. Yet we have not been able to stop the tide. A 1992 survey of teenagers in Victoria found that more than five per cent of year 11 boys and 15 per cent of year 11 girls reported having thoughts about suicide in the week before the survey. In Western Australia, 23.5 per cent of 15- to 16-year-olds surveyed by the Child Health Group had reported often considering suicide in the previous six months. There are a number of reports which suggest evidence that copycat suicides may impact heavily on some young people, while the death of a close friend can also have the opposite effect on others.All in all, the most staggering figure to be reported is the cost of suicide. Measured in years of potential life lost, from 1983 to 1992 the number of years lost is estimated to be more than 230,000 years. That is 230,000 years of effort and energy which our young people, who would have eventually grown older, should have contributed to the community. It is 230,000 years which the community would have no doubt benefited from in terms of experience, commitment and dedication. And this figure does not include the lives of the children these young people may have had, or grandchildren, and their eventual impact on our communities. The May 1997 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs entitled Aspects of youth suicide recommended that a National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention be established to advise the minister and government. This could be combined with a recent suggestion by Dr Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, to create a separate department and ministry for youth, with youth representatives providing advice—a proposal I fully support. The report also recommended that funding be targeted to the most effective areas and that a comprehensive education campaign be established to prevent youth suicide. We, as leaders of the community from all sides of the political arena, have done everything we should have in terms of reports, reviews and recommendations. Where we have failed our young people is in changing attitudes so that our perceptions of their future are reflected back to us in the most appropriate, enthusiastic and opportunistic way.One way we may be able to arrest this is through the initiative of organisations such as Here for Life, which is hosting The Australian People's Forum on Youth Suicide at Old Parliament House on 10 and 11 August 1998. The theme of the forum is `Partnering with the community to understand and prevent' and it asks the question: with one of the highest youth suicide rates in the world, are we really the lucky country? The Australian people's forum is a chance for people from all areas of the wider society to voice their ideas and opinions and to bring together representatives from the community to better understand the issue of youth suicide and to develop workable solutions to prevent this problem. I would like to conclude by returning to where I started, to a place close to my heart and to a place which is recovering from the impact of such tragedies—Bundanoon. The public meeting which attracted hundreds of local residents considered a detailed action plan to cope with the past and to move on from the tragedy. The action plan, largely written by the Anglican minister, Reverend Wayne Tildsley, draws on the community spirit of the Bundanoon community. It involves counselling sessions, community gatherings, relationship enrichment seminars for couples, and advice for parents and teenagers. Reverend Tildsley said a process of reconciliation had begun. It started with people reconnecting with each other, and accepting each other without judging them or trying to change them or even to offer solutions. I believe that, if we are to have a chance to help our young people, we need to be able to reconnect with them and to give them a feeling of sovereignty over what is also their community and their nation, but most of all—their home!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—I call the honourable member for Fisher, the chairman of the committee that produced this report.11:50:004957Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—by leave—Thank you very much for that attribution, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the most satisfying aspects of my tenure as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, prior to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) asking me to take on the role of Government Whip, was the seminar on youth suicide which we were able to organise in this very chamber early last year. The problem of youth suicide is a bipartisan issue. The Prime Minister himself indicated the gravity of this social problem confronting our nation by opening the seminar.We realise that politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas and commonsense, so we invited a wide range of people who were fighting this social evil at the coalface to attend a seminar on youth suicide. People from community groups right around the nation came and gathered in this room along with members of the committee—I would like to recognise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the deputy chairman of that committee—to pool our collective ideas and our experience.We also invited four key presenters to attend: Dr James Harrison, the Director of the National Injury Surveillance Unit at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; Associate Professor Pierre Baume, the Director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention; Professor Robert Kosky, the director of the psychiatric department at the Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital; and Dr Meg Smith OAM, the Chairman of the Youth Suicide Prevention Advisory Group.Firstly, each of these four key presenters outlined aspects of youth suicide and their experiences and brought forward some suggested solutions. We then had questions to the presenters from members of the committee and other parliamentary colleagues who were present. Then in the afternoon, in a very interesting development, the parliamentarians present moved back and the community representatives came forward to participate in a round table discussion.I must say that the recommendations by the committee were unanimous and nonpartisan. They recognised that governments of both political colours have sought to fight youth suicide, and that the previous government had a program and the new government has a program. But at the end of the day, we need to do more—not necessarily spend more, but we need to have a more effective solution to this major social problem. That is why I am particularly pleased at the government's response to the summary report which was lodged in the parliament last year.The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith), like everyone else in the parliament, is exceptionally concerned about the ongoing tragedy of youth suicide. There were a number of recommendations made by the committee. The key recommendation was that a National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention be established to provide strategic advice to the minister and the government on youth suicide prevention and related matters. Also, within six months of its establishment, the council should produce a comprehensive three-year work program to be reviewed and updated annually and the council should report annually on progress in meeting the objectives in its work plan. A recommendation was also there for the secretariat to be provided by the Department of Health and Family Services. A further recommendation related to the need for the council to be responsible for creating appropriate arrangements for consultation and cooperation between governments at the community, state and territory as well as federal levels.I am very pleased that the minister has agreed to set up the National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention. The minister has been particularly receptive and the government is now seeking nominations for the council from state and territory governments and it is aiming to ensure that nominations include broad expertise and representation from stakeholders within the government and community sectors. I am sure you will agree with me, and also share my hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that some of the people who participated in our seminar could have a role to play on the National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention. One thing that came through to us very clearly from the seminar was that very effective work was being done at the grassroots community level but, in many respects, the ideas and what was being discovered in various areas were not being shared so what we needed was much better coordination. We must make sure that we did not reinvent the wheel in different parts of the nation but that we pooled our collective experience so we can solve and fight this growing social problem. The council will be carrying out that role.I was also very pleased that the existing Youth Suicide Prevention Advisory Group agreed with the need for a ministerial level council to provide better capacity for policy input and coordination of youth suicide prevention across Australia. So this is not a council coming in on top of what is already there; it is a cooperative approach which has been drawn from the collective experience of so many people who have fought youth suicide around the nation for so many years. The other priorities which were looked at very favourably by the government are contained in the summary report tabled in the parliament.The House of Representatives standing committee, I believe, has done an outstanding job with respect to the seminar on youth suicide prevention. It was not meant to be a talkfest but an opportunity where people from around the country who had a contribution to make were able to do so. As an aside, I would like to recommend that more of our committees should have one-day seminars. I know that just prior to my relinquishing the position as chairman of the standing committee, we had organised to have a seminar on men's health, which subsequently proceeded, and that was also very successful.Unfortunately, there is a perception about politicians in the country that, whenever the government suggests something, everyone on the other side of the House disagrees. Often, as in this matter of youth suicide, there is a pooling of ideas. We do have people from across the political spectrum who feel very strongly about issues confronting our young people and, to be honest, we cannot as a nation be proud of the fact that in 1995 some 350 young males committed suicide, as did 84 young females. I must say that I was personally shocked to hear that people as young as 12, even younger, have contemplated taking their own lives. While governments have endeavoured to solve the problem in the past, regrettably, the rate of suicide continues to increase.The summary report, which I commend to anyone who has not read it, highlighted the magnitude of the problem confronting Australia. The summary report was unanimously supported by all members of the committee. The government considered the summary report in very great detail. There was a change of minister during that process and the new Minister for Family Services has brought forward what I believe is a very strong and effective response which largely implements the recommendations of the committee.The way in which this seminar, the report and the government response have been handled is a vindication of our committee system in the parliament. We have gone out there and sought ideas from those who had something to offer. The report was tabled in the parliament and the government has now responded, largely implementing the recommendations in the report. I would like to commend all members of the committee, the parliament, the government and the minister on bringing forward this new national response to youth suicide. I hope that the appalling statistics that confront us in the media regularly will be no more.11:59:004959Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—It is obvious from the number of people speaking on this report, including those who are not members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Youth Affairs—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But who would like to be, like you.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Certainly. The number of speakers is testimony to the work that has been done by this committee. I also would like to compliment the previous chair, the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper)—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Chairman.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Chairman. I believe congratulations go to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, for being the deputy chairman. There are congratulations all around on the importance of this issue to all Australians and the priority that it has been given in this particular instance.Statistics of suicides, particularly youth suicides, as we know, are alarming. One of the saddest things about the suicide statistics is that they are probably lower than the actual figures because they do not necessarily represent the true picture. In many cases, suicides are officially recorded as deaths of some other nature. Sometimes this is to protect the victim's family and friends from further trauma and sometimes because the deaths have been identified as accidental. This can happen when the cause of death appears to be an accidental overdose, for example, a car accident, a drowning and other similar sorts of accidents. I understand this point was made to the committee by Dr James Harrison during the seminar held last year.Also alarming, and also not portraying an accurate picture, are the statistics on attempted suicide. Similarly, many attempted suicides are covered up to protect other parties, or they appear as narrow escapes from accidents or accidental overdoses, for example. This report notes that accurate figures on attempted suicide are almost impossible to obtain but suggests that, for every death resulting in suicide, there are probably 10 admissions to hospital for attempted suicide. But, of course, there are those suicide attempts which do not end up in hospital and are, therefore, not recorded. Such is the impossible task of accurately portraying the prevalence of suicide in our community.Statistics given at last year's International Association of Adolescent Health Pacific Rim Conference showed that, for example, in my state of Western Australia more than four people every week committed suicide in the past year. Our state coroner has said that, in Western Australia, suicide is the highest contributor to non-natural death. A federal government commission report, the Research and consultation among young people on mental health issues, stated that two out of five young Australians knew someone who had tried to commit suicide, but more shocking than that is the fact that one in 20 had attempted to commit suicide themselves.These are all very gloomy statistics, and really there is no good news on this matter; this is an issue which does not presently have anything positive about it. Hopefully, a decrease will be imminent, and this would be positive, but currently there is nothing but bad and worse news regarding our youth suicide problem in Australia.Since the 1960s, the rate of young male suicide has almost trebled. The rate of young female suicide has doubled. Children as young as 12, as the previous member has reported, have attempted suicide. I recall reading last year that a 10-year-old boy also had attempted suicide. This was a child, not a youth, who lived in a rural area, which, of course, is a general area where suicide is most prevalent in Australia.In my own electorate of Swan, approximately one-third of the population is made up of people aged between 15 and 24. I see on a regular basis the effect of youth suicide and attempted suicide on the families and friends, and some of them are former students of mine, which is even more saddening. I am also a father of two young children, and I fear for what they will see and what would lead people they know to have suicidal thoughts. Naturally, I pray it does not touch my own family. I have a self-interest. But I do not claim to have any greater concern on this issue than anyone else in this House or anyone else in the community. We are all touched by it, and we all have an obligation, an absolute responsibility, to our young people—and to the future of our country—not to fail them but to make them want to stay here, to be alive and to be with us.The Aspects of youth suicide report reiterates, through its expert findings, the causes commonly found to contribute to youth suicide, and these have been split into, broadly, two areas: global and personal. Global factors include social triggers such as high divorce rates, high youth unemployment, low church and religious participation, high female unemployment and a high number of unwanted pregnancies. Social factors include things like the loss or death of a family member or friend, divorce or other major family upheaval, relationship break-up, geographical or emotional isolation, drug abuse, which is a huge factor, confusion over sexuality, particularly in the case of homosexuality, and contagion, or what I call copycatting—that is, emulation of heroes who have suicided, such as notable people such as Michael Hutchence recently.With respect to copycat suicides, the government's action of developing a media resource kit on the reporting and portrayal of youth suicide is certainly a step in the right direction. This has been done in consultation with the media and health sectors, and, with the prevalence of copycat suicides, it is an imperative measure. I cannot stress enough, though, that responsible reporting and sensitive handling of the news of suicide is so very important. These global and social triggers are not the definitive list. Sadly, there are more. Thankfully, many of these triggers can be experienced without leading to suicide. But we as parents and responsible adults in a community facing increasing confusion and upheaval need to be aware of the potential impacts of these types of situations on our youths.I am pleased to see the importance placed by the committee on education on depression because it is the absolute point of no return that leads our young people to feel there is no other way out. As the report suggests, there is a need for young people to be educated in constructive and positive problem solving techniques. I agree with one of the recommendations of the report in relation to this: rather than drawing attention to suicide prevention as a strategy, a focus should be placed on depression. This would give greater targeting of the cause rather than the effect. I believe that, if our young people were reassured that depression was curable, their perception of suicide as the only way out could well be reduced.But, as I mentioned, this is up to all of us. We all need to recognise depression and its symptoms and to know how and where help is available. This will be more achievable if depression becomes less stigmatised. I am also of the opinion that this course of education about depression must involve counselling at every possible corner. There is very little merit, in my view, of prescription of antidepressants to our youths if they, as young inexperienced people, are not given expert psychological advice and assistance to get them through a crisis which has led them to severe depression or to an attempted suicide in the first place.Depression has also been accepted by the government in the context of the committee's recommendation, and a lot of work is being done here also. I wholeheartedly support the committee's recommendation to better coordinate existing bodies dealing with youth suicide—this was also mentioned by the committee chairman, who spoke previously—so that an expert body can be formed. The federal government has accepted this recommendation and an appointed body is being created to enhance the coverage and coordination of youth suicide activity across the country. The government is also establishing the National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide.The work of the committee has been very comprehensive on this most sensitive of issues. The committee has concluded that the issue of youth suicide needs to be opened up. Study, acceptance and understanding of depression needs to be opened up to help us as a community deal with the issue and, hopefully, contribute to a marked reduction in the number of attempted suicides and suicides. I am personally grateful to the committee for the great work that they have done, and I will certainly follow these recommendations with interest. Therefore, I naturally wholly endorse the committee's report.12:09:004961Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—Firstly, I want to commend you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Youth Affairs for this particular report. I find the report quite valuable to those who are dealing with this particular area. I fully endorse most of the recommendations. What is the problem of youth these days? I am too old to recognise how young people operate these days. I can only relate to some instances in my own youth. I had a number of friends who committed suicide—two, in fact. One was a brother of a dear friend of mine. The question is: how do you rationally understand an irrational act? That is pretty hard to do.In Cowan, for a number of young people I speak to there are enormous pressures upon them. They have problems associated with their families. They have problems associated with dealing with the community, having access to the community, having access to the decision making processes of the community. They feel a bit ostracised from the community. They also have great demands placed upon them in relation to education and work. Over the last 20 years or so there seems to be a different attitude within the community as to how we deal with our youth, in particular, work opportunities for them. We have a greater emphasis on education, which is rightly so. However, we tend to put too much emphasis on education and not enough emphasis on moving into employment fields. When I left school at 16 there was a huge amount of opportunity for young 16-year-olds. There is not that opportunity anymore.I spoke to a 16-year-old girl doing work experience in my office recently. She knew someone who had attempted suicide. As I say, a dear friend of mine recently was contemplating it as well. I asked her why she thought this young person had taken such a drastic step and she said that it was because of the stress that this particular person was under. She felt that the pressure from her peers and society in general to achieve was so great that it pushed her beyond the brink. The 16-year-old also said that the high number of single parent families and families with step parents were also to blame. These children missed out on something, coming from a broken home.That is a cry that I hear in my office almost daily, in particular, from people associated with the Child Support Agency. A man came into see me, and my staff and I were very concerned about him, to talk about his family and the stress that he was under. It seemed to us that he was about to take his own life, and we had to bring in the authorities down to look after him. So in Cowan there is a high concern about families and the destruction of them through whatever means, but we do not seem to be supporting them in the community as much as we could. The young girl I was talking to, who was doing work experience in my office, related that story about the pressures in the community.Clearly, the high incidence of family breakdown can be attributed, in part, to the pressure of parents today to make ends meet, to pay off mortgages and meet their financial commitments. This young person I spoke to also believes that pressure on her peer group of those final years of high school and the process of sitting formal exams is also to blame. As she said, the competition to get into university or any further education is so great today that school children need to achieve at a high level just to be competitive.I say to the policy makers that we really need to start addressing youth affairs in a different way. The facilities available in Cowan for young people are scarce. I have called upon local government and the state government to address these issues. We need to really be thinking about youth issues more clearly. They are an important part of our community, and it seems to me that we do not necessarily treat them with much seriousness.The coalition government has recognised that not all teenagers want to go to university and that some teenagers are unable to achieve the grades required to gain entrance. In the last 18 months we have worked hard to provide alternative types of training and options once a teenager leaves high school to alleviate some of the pressures that our young people are feeling. We are providing opportunities.There are a number of groups which are earmarked in the report as those at higher risk of attempting suicide in Australia. They include: those who live in rural and remote areas, particularly males; those of Aboriginal descent, particularly males—and I have had a number of Aboriginal males within my electorate who have committed suicide—and those suffering from mental illness. In young males over 16 in Australia there has been an increase in death from hanging. I am gravely concerned that Australia's rate of suicide compared with other countries is in the high range. This is how irrational thinking about this is. You try to understand rationally why people in Australia, such a great country as it is, are committing suicide. You cannot understand an irrational act rationally, I am sure.There are a lot of things that we can do. There are a number of things that the federal government is providing. I would like to see them provide more opportunities for young people, but they are recognising some areas and working on them. These areas include $6 million for rural and regional youth counselling services, $6 million to Lifeline and Kids Helpline for telephone counselling services, $3 million for programs for parents, $2 million for education and training professionals in education and medical fields, and a further $1 million for research into childhood mental health and factors contributing to adolescent suicide. As the report so starkly shows, it appears that, despite the government's best efforts, we are still missing the point. The difficulty in building an effective program is recognising the major factors that affect suicidal people. If the money we are funnelling into research into youth suicide is not making an impact, then we must spend the money more wisely. I give another example. Mr Andrew Hoare from the Wanneroo accommodation service and I have spoken many times about youth homelessness and the impact that has on young people and the desperation that a lot of these young people in the electorate have. I am very concerned about youth homelessness. I mentioned a report in the last parliament on that particular issue. Youth homelessness exists in my electorate, I am sorry to say. To say that we can solve it by doing certain things is difficult, because there are no easy solutions. With youth homelessness there are people that are abused, there are those that abuse the system and there are those that do not know what they want. A lot of the suicides that we have in our area come from these particular demographics. I will end my remarks there. However, I do want to say a couple of final points about my own electorate. I have an area with increasing numbers of children. I have an increasing youth area with a teenage population. I am concerned about the lack of facilities available for these young people. Sure the traditional things are there, but, when it comes to community support for these traditional institutions such as the Boy Scouts and sporting groups and other groups, they are not getting the community support from other parents. It is almost into a crisis state in Cowan. I am trying to work with the local council to improve the facilities there. We are going to have a bit of a crisis I think in a couple of years in Cowan with our young people regarding facilities. I hope it does not lead to frustration and lack of hope and opportunity as to what was so rightly identified by the report for these young people to take the ultimate step in taking their life, because they do have a future in Australia. This young generation is the future of Australia. As legislators and as older Australians we all have the responsibility to ensure that they participate in our community.12:18:004963Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—It would be fair to say that there would be few of us in this parliament who have not been touched in one way or another by an incidence of youth suicide either through dealing with our constituents or maybe through our children's peer groups or perhaps directly through our families. I know that I, on being told on one occasion of a youth suicide, along with many others, have expressed dismay and have questioned what occurred in the life of that young person that so overwhelmed them that they were driven to the tragic step of ending their life. Last year I attended the funeral of a young girl who prematurely ended her life. The palpable pain and disbelief of the parents as they searched for an answer to their daughter's death was really quite heart-rending. They, like many other families affected by youth suicide, need to know that compassionate and responsible measures are being taken to combat the rising incidence of youth suicide. I would like to commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs for its report, Aspects of youth suicide. I would plead that the report will not be left to gather dust on the parliamentary shelves, and I do not believe it will, but it is important that its recommendations will be acted on in a constructive and coordinated way. We need to remind ourselves of the facts and dimensions of the problem. In 1995, suicide was the recorded cause of death for 2,366 Australians. Of those deaths, 1,871 or 79 per cent involved males. Of these, 355, or 19 per cent, were young men aged under 25. That is almost one death a day for almost every day of the year. I believe that, at present, the highest risk age range for suicide of males appears to start at about school leaving age and continues into early middle age.Suicide rates for females in 1995 were much lower than for males. There were 495 female suicide deaths recorded. Seventeen per cent of those—that is, 84—were under 25 years of age. ABS figures show that in 1995 suicide was the fourth leading cause of premature death in Australia following cancer, heart disease and accidents. Furthermore, whilst suicide represented six per cent of all causes of premature death in 1983, it has risen to 9.2 per cent in 1995. So it has gone up by 50 per cent in percentage terms. These are of course disturbing figures. Even more disturbing is the fact that they are not finite figures.The rate of completed or attempted suicides in Australia is generally recognised as higher than reported due to a number of factors such as under reporting, not officially recording suicides in order to protect the victim's family or perhaps not recognising the suicide due to the nature of the death. It may be drug overdose related or single person car accidents. According to the report, hospital statistics show that for every death resulting from suicide there are 10 admissions to hospital for attempted suicide. Again, these figures do not represent the numbers of attempted suicides in reality because many are not admitted to hospital or do not seek help in any form.It is also generally recognised that factors linked to youth suicide are numerous and complex. The committee concluded that young people who suicide fall into several main categories, the higher risk categories being: those who live in rural and remote areas, particularly males; those who are of Aboriginal descent, particularly young men again; those young people suffering a mental illness; those who have access to lethal means, such as young males in rural areas having access to firearms; those who have previously attempted suicide; and those who are confused about or ostracised because of perhaps their sexuality. In the 1996-97 budget, the national youth suicide strategy provided $19 million over three years to be spent on a number of measures including rural and regional youth counselling services, telephone counselling services specifically for young people, programs for parents, education and training programs for professionals, and $1 million for research specifically into childhood mental health and factors which lead to adolescent suicide and attempted suicide. Whilst much is being done to help prevent the incidence of youth suicide, obviously more needs to be done. The committee made a number of recommendations in the report, including the establishment of a National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention and with a research advisory committee complementing the work of the council. Development of a depression awareness campaign for young people, adoption of standard procedure for hospitals when treating young people who present with attempted suicide or self-harm injuries, a review of current funding and redirection of some funds to more appropriate and better targeted programs, and ensuring consistency in data collection at all levels of government were also priority recommendations of the report. Given that the rise in youth suicide rates cannot be explained by a single issue or cause but is a combination of a number of complex and diverse factors such as family discord, isolation and depression, finding a solution to the problem will not be easy. It is not just a matter of providing more funding but of ensuring a coordinated approach to suicide prevention between national and state bodies with both state and federal government working in close cooperation and with consultation. The cost to the community of this premature loss of life is enormous. Apart from the impact on the family and peers, the estimate for years of potential life lost due to suicide was more than 230,000 for the period 1983 to 1992 alone. We, as a government, have a responsibility to do something about this dreadful situation. We have the opportunity to take future positive steps to reduce this premature loss of life—and I hope that we do—effectively and efficiently and to make a long-term commitment. When we do that and as we do that, I know we will have the support of the opposition.12:25:004965Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—Julie was 16 when she took her own life by walking out onto the highway and into the path of oncoming traffic. Weeks before, Julie's schoolteacher suspected something was wrong when Julie asked a lot of questions about domestic violence during a police presentation at the school. These suspicions were reinforced when Julie was caught smoking marijuana before school and then later found semi-conscious in the school toilets with half a bottle of whisky beside her. Despite exhibiting these signs indicating she was suffering from emotional trauma, no-one was there for Julie when she needed help.Like Julie, Allen also exhibited potential suicide signals. Allen was a keen school student and sportsman but he started to fall into disruptive behaviour patterns. The school guidance officer became so concerned about his behaviour that she contacted his family. But they more or less told her to `get stuffed'. Allen subsequently died from a drug overdose. Even though a couple of people sensed the growing anguish these kids were experiencing, their efforts to help counted for nothing. What measures can we as a community take to get to these young people before they reach this crisis point? Today and on other occasions we have had many speakers referring to the statistics of youth suicide. However, I would like to take a more positive approach, especially as the statistics are so horrific. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I have discussed the issue of youth suicide with organisations and individuals who deal with this tragedy on a regular basis. I believe we need to develop a more coordinated and supportive approach from peers, friends, teachers, authority figures and workmates. People in our community need to be made aware of suicidal behaviour before the health system can respond. I am inspired by the efforts of thousands of people across Australia who work so hard in the search for a solution to this youth suicide epidemic. Many positive programs are being put into place. One community network is a pilot project known as the Here for Life youth suicide prevention project set up in Logan city in the south of Brisbane. This project targeted youth and provided a support network where potential suicide cases were detected.The Here for Life's local community youth strategy plan was very successful in Logan city, and I would like to inform the House about some of the positive feedback they received. The youth health services workers are now referring many of their clients to GPs in the network. Gaining access to general practitioners is now much easier. Police officers are able to contact local community health centre volunteers when they are confronted by young people who are threatening suicide. GPs are contacted by school guidance officers regarding ex-patients. Guidance officers can inform the doctors when the students are displaying odd behaviour. In one case, a youth worker was called to assist an `at risk of suicide' single mum with three children—mum only wanted to be seen by a GP, and the youth worker contacted the GP network. These results from this type of support are what is needed within the community. They are a very positive indication that a network can function effectively in the referral and management of youth at risk. It is particularly pleasing to note that many of the examples involved the services of GPs. I was so impressed with the work being done by the Here for Life program that I set up a task force in my own electorate of Lilley to adopt a similar approach for the north Brisbane region. This community network is modelled on the Logan city community youth strategy plan. It targets adolescents in years 8 to 12 at school, post-secondary youth, young adults from the ages of 21 to 25 and their gate keepers—the teachers, the doctors, the clergy, families and community workers.Our first meeting was held on 24 October 1997 and was attended by Reverend Bruce Cornish of the Sandgate Uniting Church; Debbie Kilroy of Pine Rivers Community Health; Inspector Paul Jones of the Sandgate Juvenile Aid Bureau; Murray Benstead, a very concerned private citizen; Mitchell Dobbie, Director of Youth Hotline; Kim McLean of Catholic Youth Services; Michael Greco of the Royal College of General Practitioners; John Kennedy, Principal of St Patrick's College at Shorncliffe; and Keith Hamburger, a Queensland government suicide prevention project officer. As a result of this, the Sandgate and District Life is Worth It Focus Group was formed.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—As a result of this meeting, the Sandgate and District Life is Worth It Focus Group was formed. Its main goal is to promote understanding and goodwill to achieve partnerships between families, the community and government agencies. These partnerships will be with a diverse range of people—from the education system, including the school groundsmen, service organisations, sports and recreation clubs, industry, academia and church and community leaders.With the support of these community minded citizens, the state government and the Assistant Police Commissioner of Queensland, the focus group was formed and it centred on four of our local high schools in the Sandgate police district. The support of Mr Barry Barlow, the executive officer of the community service projects, and Ms Kathy James, the director of nursing for the Community of the Prince Charles Hospital and District Health Service, has been invaluable, as has the support of Mr Keith Hamburger and the Reverend Bruce Cornish. Reverend Cornish eventually took on the role of chairman of this focus group.I must compliment the state government in Queensland on its strategy to create five network models in Queensland, which are to be situated at Bowen, the Gold Coast, Ipswich, Roma and Rockhampton. These five network models will eventually be expanded to 100 community networks across the state which will be capable of a sustained and effective response to youth suicide and other serious self-harming behaviours.The Howard government has also shown a determined effort to meet the challenge of youth suicide head-on by launching a national youth suicide prevention strategy. This will be a coordinated initiative that will run to 1999 with a budget of $31 million. This is on top of the funds the Howard government has allocated to research into youth suicide and prevention.There is no doubt Australia has a youth suicide problem. While the overall suicide rate has remained stable for most of this century, the youth suicide rate has increased dramatically over the last three decades, particularly amongst young males. Suicide amongst young males is the biggest killer after road trauma and larger than any of the other categories of fatal accidents. Even though the level of youth suicide has increased fourfold in the last 35 years, it is still not possible to forecast what particular individual will commit suicide. It is also extremely difficult to show that any one prevention strategy is beneficial.The white paper on youth suicide suggests that the youth suicide rate has stabilised and that there are grounds for optimism. However, there is much more work to be done and I am pleased that the Howard government and the state governments across Australia, especially ours in Queensland, are giving this issue such serious and systematic attention. The future is not some place we are going but one we are creating. Let everyone work on creating a positive future for the youth of Australia.12:33:004967Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Aspects of youth suicide report prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which we are all speaking about today, deals with a major problem afflicting not just young people but people of most age groups in Australia. Suicide is one of the 10 most prevalent forms of death in developed nations. I have obtained some statistics on suicide which illustrate the enormity of the problem. Choosing 1991 on a random basis, there were 1,847 male suicides across all age groups in that year and 513 female suicides. By 1996, the yearly figure had increased to 1,931 for males but had thankfully dropped slightly to 462 for females. This meant that the rate of suicide across all age groups hovered around 21 for every 100,000 males between 1991 and 1996, but dropped slightly from six to five per 100,000 females. For the age group that this parliamentary committee report focused on—those aged between 15 and 24—there were 376 male suicides in 1991, dropping to 351 in 1996. For females, the incident rate reduction was far more pronounced, with 86 suicides in 1991 and 56 in 1996. These are not just statistics; these are real people—young, full of potential and with the capacity to make a difference in the lives of their community and the network around them, a contribution lost to this nation.Our rates of male and female suicide are about double those in the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark, and they are also above those in the US and Canada. Over a longer lifetime, 30 years, the committee heard that the rate of youth suicide had quadrupled. If this were the case with the road toll, I suspect there would be a newspaper editorial or a feature story every day, but of course deaths on roads have declined with safer cars, compulsory seat belt wearing and a great community effort. We have not been so fortunate with suicides.When we compare the statistics with those from 100 years ago, we find that not much has changed. In 1887 there were 20.6 deaths per 100,000 males. In 1996 the rate was 21 per 100,000. So it has transcended generations, and the common myth that suicide is a product of today's Australians being increasingly unable to cope with modern day challenges is no more true than a similar claim a century ago. Challenges in life, fragile elements of human character and many of the difficulties we face are common with what was felt by our forebears.It is clear to me that, while every death in our young age groups is particularly a tragedy—whether it be from suicide, drug overdose, road victim trauma or the like—we must ask ourselves why males are far more likely to take their own lives than females. Being the proud father of a precious and beautiful young boy, I have made a point of reading and talking about Steven Biddulph's acclaimed work on raising boys. I believe in his thesis that helping boys grow with and cope with their maleness is a key to nurturing healthy, happy and centred young men.I recently attended the handover and celebrations of the Seaford scout troop and remarked on this with many of the scout leaders. They shared the view of a lot of Mr Biddulph's strategies and believed that engaging young boys in activities with older men who have learnt to deal with their maleness and who can guide them through that task makes an enormous contribution to the development of those young people.It was gratifying that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) chose to open the committee's seminar on aspects of youth suicide held in February last year. The Prime Minister has matched his very sincere empathy with all those who come in contact with young people at risk with substantial allocations of federal funds. I will not repeat those figures. My colleagues have already covered much of that.Also, I welcome the committee's call for a national advisory council on youth suicide prevention to be established and recognise that the government has acted on this and a number of the other recommendations. Obviously, we must be incredibly sensitive with the way we handle the reporting and discussion of this great problem. There are plenty of suggestions that some of the statistical evidence available to us about this phenomenon, as was reported by Dr Harrison from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, is not always accurate.Obviously, we need to be sensitive about this, but to be able to rely upon accurate research data will guide policy makers in their efforts and also guide the efforts of the many not-for-profit organisations like Here for Life trying to make a difference in this area. The Here for Life organisation is actually convening the Australian People's Forum on Youth Suicide. That is scheduled for August this year in Canberra in this area, and I hope many positive suggestions come out of that occasion.Community workers in the field share the view expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer), who, on 18 July last year, commented that there is possibly a catch-22 situation in elevating the discussion in terms of the exposure in the media of the issue of suicide. Sadly, there are some people who try it as an option and emulate the discussion itself. The Deputy Prime Minister's call really is for the media to handle the issue with sensitivity and not sensationalise it, as tends to occur in the tabloid press.Young people regularly tell me that the media is not interested in good things about them or what they do. They perceive this clearly and identify negativity about young people as being a more cut through approach—in media jargon—in terms of getting stories before the broader community. I have noticed political propaganda being circulated in Dunkley also embraces this warped thinking that talking down young people and their prospects is a more sensational and effective way of catching people's attention.As the committee concluded, it might be best to often focus on depression awareness and problem solving skills. Although I do not have a teenager in my household yet, I understand that a number of adolescents, particularly boys, have difficulty in communicating openly with their parents. Their peer group literally becomes a lifeline.It was for that reason I was particularly interested in and supportive of the work the Here for Life organisation did in developing a national peer support campaign for the youth of Australia. This campaign, funded with the assistance of Coles Myer and the Rotary district 9810 of my community, put forward 30-second community service announcements called, `Look. Ask. Act.' Andrew Gaze was the face of this campaign, and the simple message was, `Observe the behaviour of your friends, of those people close to you, because, in their behaviour, they may be telling you something that others in their families are not seeing and that you have the opportunity to help them through the difficult time they are experiencing.'Already the National Health and Medical Research Council has moved to develop guidelines for clinical practice, the reason being that many doctors and health professionals become the key contact point with people suffering from ailments or conditions that lead to suicidal tendencies. Because one in four people will have suffered at least one episode of major depression by the time that are 18, helping health professionals to identify, diagnose, prevent and manage depression in young people, particularly those aged 13 to 20 is a positive measure.It is for this very reason that I am very supportive of the work of Dr Nikki Martin in Frankston, who, with the help of the division of general practice, the peninsula health care network, the local councils and youth workers in the area, has worked and is continuing to work to develop a youth health service for young people of the Mornington Peninsula community. Her work is outstanding. The perception that health professionals, properly trained, may still not be attractive to a young person is being addressed by having health services available through the youth resource centre so young people can go to a place where they are comfortable, talk about their situation and hopefully get the treatment they need.I had the opportunity of talking with a young man who was recently released from prison. He was in there because he had a drug habit, and his pilfering and petty crime had him convicted and imprisoned. His mother committed suicide because she felt she had failed him and had failed in her task as a mother. He is a young man who has just come back out into the world, needing all the help he can get, and his own family feel they have let the young man down. Now he is looking around for guidance from beyond his own family.It is for that reason that working with parents is so important, I think, in tackling this issue, working with school communities so that those contact points and the people who are there to help and nurture young people through difficult times know what to do so that they are also tooled up. I am looking forward to discussing this matter further with the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and Dr Martin in the next few days.Finally, in closing, I would like to talk a bit further about the challenges facing parents. I have had cause in the last six months to actually take the place of a parent of a young person who is contemplating suicide. I have had to make the phone calls through those community organisations to those health care providers, and it is frightening how difficult it can be to get help. Even as a member of parliament, trying to find an appointment slot, trying to talk to the right person who can make a difference, was an extraordinarily time consuming and difficult task, and I was not faced with having to provide immediate care for the young person like a parent would.There are services out there. They are grossly overstretched. But the thing that concerns me most is that they do not always connect very well. I have some statistics here, which I will not talk about, time does not allow me, about the number of people who were hospitalised for their depression or some psychiatric condition that has led them to contemplate suicide. But between a healthy person and someone with a psychiatric disorder is an enormous bunch of people who still can be depressed and can contemplate suicidal acts. Where do these people go? How do we help their parents? How do we help them? These are the issues that are going through my mind, and I look forward to discussing them further with the coalition government ministers, who I know share a deep concern for young people and for what they are experiencing and also share a very deep interest in the recommendations of the committee's report.12:44:004969Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—So many people can be vulnerable to self-harm as their sense of isolation increases and their emotions are heightened. I guess young people, in particular, are least able to cope with those negative feelings, and they can act on impulse with dire consequences. Life is not a cartoon. The simple act of ending one's life, or of ending the life of another, is nothing that can be repealed in the next episode. A lot of young people do not have the experience to cope with life's ups and downs nor, sadly, do they have the family or peer support that they need.I would like to register my congratulations to the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Billson) for his contribution. His usual studied contributions to debates in this place have been enhanced by his speech today. He mentioned the work of Steve Biddulph. Raising Boys is a book that I have read, too. I have a six-year-old son, who I must admit frightens the living daylights out of me with his cartoon like expressions. If he gets upset about something, he says, `I'm going to kill myself.' He says those words. It frightens the living daylights out of me, because I know that, as a boy, he is amongst the most vulnerable in our community. Statistics prove that. I think Steve Biddulph's book, Raising Boys, raises a lot of matters that are at the heart of a lot of social problems and provides some real guidance to parents and to those who care as far as matters such as the rising levels of youth crime are concerned.I do not think anyone would disagree with me when I say that when a young person takes their own life it is a tragedy which not only deeply affects family and friends but also tears at the fabric of our society. We lose the marvellous potential—potential that is never going to be realised when a life is lost—and the aspirations that parents have for their children. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs found that in 1995 alone 434 young Australians between the ages of 12 and 25 committed suicide—350 of them were male and 84 were female. These are horrendous statistics in anyone's language, that so many young men, in particular, and young women should decide to take their own lives for one reason or another. It is a shocking indictment on our society.The committee's report also notes there has been a growing trend in Australia since the 1960s, with rates of suicide per 100,000 head of population showing male suicide has almost trebled while young female suicide has doubled. What is even more tragic in these statistics is that it includes children as young as 12—children just 3½ years older than my daughter and five or six years older than my son.I spoke to one young person recently on this subject. She was 25. She said she thought youth suicide occurs because there are so many adult pressures on young people these days and that in a lot of ways youth has been taken out of young people. They have worries about education, finding a job, money and family break-ups. They even have worries about having a roof over their heads. These are the sorts of things that a lot of young people worry about these days. The economic climate over the past decade has done nothing to allay their fears, and even talking about those sorts of matters only confirms them. When they reach 18 young people have even more responsibilities thrust upon them. It is no wonder some of them react as they do.However, it is not a simple cause and effect scenario, because there are also factors involved which drive a person to suicide. A major one the committee identified was depression, and it recommended the need for young people to be educated about what depression is, how to recognise the symptoms and where to get help. Yet the sad fact is those statistics are indicative not only of the deeply troubled section of our community, our young people, but also of a more general malaise which has crept upon all of us.Not so long ago Australia was regarded internationally as the No. 1 place to live. Then our rating somehow slipped to 8th place and has now plummeted to 18 or 19 on the list. An important part of the Howard government's strategy to repair our society and put us back into the top 10 by the year 2010 includes addressing social imperatives such as youth suicide. This is because we recognise the good health of our society and the good health of our economy are codependent. One without the other will not put us back on top.With social issues such as youth suicide, when we talk about finding solutions for helping our young people, I believe we must act locally but with the benefit of our collective experience at the national level. There have, however, been some difficulties in doing this because the committee discovered during its investigations that there were inadequacies of detailed national data collection. This was highlighted by the committee, and I believe its work is more valuable to us as a result.If we can draw together the historical strands of what is being done by various levels of government and non-government organisations over the past few years, this government can ensure a more coordinated and financially better targeted approach in its current and future endeavours. The standing committee has helped with the process of national data collation by holding a seminar in February last year, which drew together a range of expert views and experience. I am sure these people greatly assisted the committee in the formulation of its final recommendations.I know from my own local involvement that we are greatly concerned in my own electorate of Moreton about what we can do to prevent this very real phenomenon of youth suicide. In fact, during the last election campaign, the coalition's youth policy was launched in my electorate, at the MacGregor Scout Hall, and that contained some definite policies and directions about what to do about youth suicide. I am particularly pleased to note it was one of my own local branches of the Young Liberals, the then Tarragindi branch—now renamed the Robertson Young Liberals—which helped submit some of the ideas used in the policy the coalition took to the last election.Another important lesson I have learned is that it is vital we have a bipartisan approach to youth suicide prevention. There is no room for political point scoring along the way. I am pleased to be a member of a government which recognises its role to build upon the positive action which has been taken in the past to solve this problem. This means the $18 million allocated by the Howard government to the national youth suicide strategy is in addition to the $13 million allocated by the previous Labor government under its `Here for life' program. This is a total of $31 million in funding for the 1998-99 year for various programs to help young people at risk of suicide.These programs include funding for rural and regional youth counselling services, programs for parents and relevant professionals like doctors, teachers and health workers, funding for telephone counselling by Life Line and Kids Help Line and follow up monitoring and help for young people who have physically harmed themselves. There is also funding for more research programs into the factors leading to youth suicide, including specific research into childhood mental health.Griffith University, which is at the heart of my electorate of Moreton, has received $100,000 under the national youth suicide strategy to research practical strategies for successful intervention to reduce access to hanging as a means of suicide. Clearly, the more we find out the more we can do to help our young people deal with their problems instead of resorting to suicide.Everybody in life experiences ups and downs. What we need to do as a community is to support our young people during their passage to adulthood so they can learn to live through the downs as well as the ups. The fact many young people need our help more than ever is a fact of life we must deal with. We can do this as individuals, as a community and as a government. One can only hope in the future youth suicides will be reduced and government strategy, a whole of government strategy, will do something towards helping this.This is why programs like work for the dole provide a sense of belonging, a sense of need. It says, `You are needed by our community. We want you to get involved in these sorts of programs.' Those sorts of programs are practical issues, perhaps off the direct agenda of youth suicide, but they are about sending a signal to our young Australians that there are people in the community and in government who want to support them and want to give them the support they need along the way so they can make a positive contribution not only today but also tomorrow.12:52:004972Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—I rise in support of the motion to take note of the report Aspects of youth suicide . In doing so, I would like to congratulate the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) for his thoughtful comments. What he had to say about work for the dole and the inclusion of young people were very important comments. This motion arises out of a seminar held in Parliament House and entitled Aspects of Youth Suicide. It highlighted the urgent need for governments to work together on this important community issue. I should note that the government took action immediately in the 1996 budget. The government's national youth suicide strategy included an amount of $19 million over a three-year period allocated for a strategy of research counselling and early intervention programs, and that showed a great commitment from day one. This is a non-partisan issue in the sense that no-one can be unaffected by concern about this important subject. The first academic in modern times to address this subject was Emile Durkheim who wrote a book entitled Suicide. He took great interest in the changes that were happening in Europe where in a developing industrial society fundamental changes were taking place that required a new method of analysis. He was trying to look at situations of individuals in groups, because, although suicide is a deeply personal thing, it impacts upon—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.55 p.m. to 1.07 p.m.NK6Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCH—I was speaking about Emile Durkheim and his study on suicide. He found that the social dislocation that was occurring in Europe at the time of industrialisation was very important in the study of suicide. It is interesting to note that we are also going through a period of social dislocation and have been doing so for some decades. For instance, the feeling of social dislocation, or alienation which can arise from it, has sometimes led young people to embrace subcultures where they do find some meaning and purpose, but some of these are counterproductive. For example, the recent phenomenon of the youth grunge culture where the lead singer of a popular group committed suicide legitimised that action for others to copycat. I think that is a recent illustration of how too much socialisation in the wrong area can be detrimental.It is not sufficient in my view to medicalise the problem of suicide, where individuals with psychological dispositions perhaps to suicide are seen as the central locus of the problem. The problem is far too widespread for us to focus particularly on that. What we have to look at is the general situation in our society.I think there are a lot of young people involved in attempted suicides and the like, and we have to look very carefully at their developing sexuality and their need for intimacy. Perhaps there are some cultural lessons we can learn from various ethnic groups in our country. Although it might generally be said that the dislocation from one's country of origin might lead to social dislocation, we should also be looking at the cultural structures, particularly the extended family structures, of a lot of our migrant groups. They can give support to a lot of young people and to anybody else in those family structures. I think they are very important in making sure people feel they belong to something and then they can find people within those structures whom they can go to to talk out their problems and where they can always find sympathy.It is very hard to get exact figures but I know I have been to two funerals this year of young men from my electorate. They are particularly traumatic experiences to attend. It is obviously a very sad situation where a country like Australia—with our wealth and opportunities—has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the western world. The Sutherland Shire Council community report stated that there were 25 suicides in the shire between 1988 and 1992 of people between the ages of 15 and 24. But we are not always sure; sometimes you are not sure whether a death was accidental or whether it was suicide.I had the experience of meeting one young man who was emerging from a particularly destructive cult. He came to see me. He was obviously very disturbed about this, but we thought he had got out of the cult. Unfortunately, he committed suicide and he made mention of his involvement in this particular organisation in his suicide note. That was another disturbing example in my local area of a suicide which I had cause to note. I blame that very much on the actual perverse socialisation that occurred in the cult and the fact that he was isolated and alienated when they kicked him out of it.But there are positive things happening. I had the good fortune to be invited to a group which was set up under the auspices of the Gymea Anglican Church recently. They call themselves SOULIES. I do not think I have been more impressed by a group of young people. I was also very happy to see the opportunities that are presented to make sure that young people have the opportunity to not be alone, that they can mix in a tremendous environment. I felt particularly welcome when I went to visit this group. To see the numbers of young people who are involved in the SOULIES group made me very optimistic about the future.We have to see this as a holistic solution, rather than just specifically addressing the psychological aspects, which of course are very important. Governments can do things. The member for Moreton referred in a very pertinent way to the work for the dole scheme. This sort of scheme—where young people have something to do with their lives, have a cause for their lives and are also contributing to other people—is very important. We have got to be looking at the social dislocation that occurs in our society and addressing some of those problems, and governments can play a very big role in this. I could go further and talk more about some of the recommendations of the Aspects of youth suicide seminar, but they have been well canvassed by members and I will just applaud them and say that we all have to get right behind this and give it all the support we can.Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony) adjourned.Adjournment4973Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 497413:12:004974Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I want to speak this afternoon about the difficulties being faced by one of my constituents with the termination of the CES. In my electorate of Shortland, which is partly the Hunter and the Central Coast, we have seen the end of that 50-year tradition of the CES, with the wide range of services they provided, particularly to employers but most of all to smaller employers in finding people for them and sifting through and prioritising the people they sent for interview.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 1.13 p.m. to 1.24 p.m.497413:23:004974Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I rise today to acknowledge the great contribution of the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), who has just announced his retirement, to the development of Australia's transportation system. I would like put on record that John Sharp will certainly be a loss to the National Party of Australia, he will certainly be a loss to the government and also, I believe, to Australia for the role that he has played—and perhaps any future role that he may have chosen to have played had he stayed in politics. I wish John Sharp, his wife Victoria and their three children all the very best in his future life outside of politics, in whatever field that may be. John Sharp has spent 14 years in the federal parliament. He originally came into this august institution at the age of 29. He was initially the member for Gilmore and then became the member for Hume. He has held many senior front bench positions but, most importantly, he was shadow spokesperson for transport and regional development for over 10 years. This culminated in his becoming the Minister for Transport and Regional Development for two years in government.Without doubt all members of this House would recognise the incredible work that the member for Hume did in that period in reforming, in particular, the railway, aviation and transport sectors. Turning first to the area of railways, it is basically through his determination that the establishment of a single access regime will come into place on 1 July 1998. This will allow the free movement of goods and cargo across the three different rail gauges and through the different instrumentalities that are under the control of the states. The member for Hume was also very successful in leading the privatisation of AN. There are now three new private sector operators of rail systems. Likewise, he has a keen interest in seeing the development of the Sydney-Canberra very fast train and was most instrumental in achieving the ultimate Commonwealth contribution to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. He also started the privatisation process of the National Rail Corporation. But it is the area of aviation which really brought John Sharp to the fore, particularly in his period as shadow spokesperson. After the Monarch crash and before the Seaview crash, he pursued the government vigorously to see an improvement in aviation standards across Australia, particularly through the reform of the old Civil Aviation Authority into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. While he was minister he initiated a complete rewriting of aviation safety regulations and was responsible for appointing a number of new board members to CASA. He was also behind the decision which culminated in the privatisation of a number of our airports, raising over $4 billion which was used to help pay off federal government debt. That privatisation process led to lower charges and increased competition in our aviation sector.At Mascot airport he was instrumental in introducing the slot landing system, which came into operation in March 1998 and is saving airlines enormous amounts of money, and in reopening Sydney's east-west runway. A long-term operating plan has now been established at Sydney airport and much of that is due to the work that John Sharp did when he was Minister for Transport and Regional Development.In the area of roads, and this is certainly relevant for the people of Richmond, John Sharp was instrumental in putting together the roads of national importance program through which over $3.1 billion will be spent over the next 10 years upgrading the Pacific Highway north of Hexham right through to Brisbane. Concerning the electorate of Richmond, I pay tribute to the work John Sharp did in ensuring that a number of projects were put into the first budget of the coalition government after it was elected to power. Tomorrow, Friday, the Brunswick Heads bypass, a $21 million bypass of the town of Brunswick Heads, will officially be opened by the new Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), but great credit goes to John Sharp for actually making it happen. John Sharp was also responsible for the approval of the Chinderah bypass and ultimately for the $224 million Chinderah to Billinudgel project. He also pushed for the introduction of the black spots program. In the maritime industry, John Sharp played a critical role in turning the ANL shipping line into a profitable business which is now ready for privatisation. He also played a critical role in waterfront reform. I wish John Sharp the very best. He has played an invaluable role for rural Australia and for the National Party. I consider him a good friend and I wish him well.497513:28:004975Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I want to bring to the attention of the Main Committee the anger, disgust and frustration of one of my constituents from Norah Head who, not having access to the CES, contacted the department at Tuggerah and was given three employment agencies to contact to try to find work for her 17-year-old daughter who desperately wants a job. She contacted Drake and received a recorded message but, at the end of the recorded message lasting 10 minutes, she was none the wiser.She then contacted Coast Enrolment Gosford and was told to take her resume there by the following day. It would have cost her $20 return to get there by public transport. She was also told to contact the Wyong agency which would have cost $10 return to get there by public transport. People in the area have lost access to the CES and have lost the convenience and support that not only the CES but also other organisations that were in operation at that time gave to them. I want to bring to the attention of the Main Committee our deep concern at what this government has done with the abolition of the CES. May I ask: has the member for Hume (Mr Sharp) resigned from the parliament?XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—No, he's retiring at the next election.HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—Then I will have another opportunity to say something. Although we come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, I would like to commend the member for Hume for the very valuable work we were able to achieve together on committees of this parliament. I think his passing from the parliament will be a loss to the parliament.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4976The following answers to questions were circulated:4976(Question No. 2631)26314976Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding Western Australia's public hospitals in (a) 1991-92, (b) 1992-93, (c) 1993-94, (d) 1994-95, (e) 1995-96, (f) 1996-97 and (g) what sum is estimated to be spent in 1997-98.(2) Is he able to say what sum the Western Australian Government contributed towards funding Western Australia's public hospitals in (a) 1991-92, (b) 1992-93, (c) 1993-94, (d) 1994-95, (e) 1995-96, (f) 1996-97 and (g) what sum is estimated to be spent in 1997-98.(3) Is he able to say what total sum was spent on funding Western Australia's public hospitals in (a) 1991-92, (b) 1992-93, (c) 1993-94, (d) 1994-95, (e) 1995-96, (f) 1996-97 and (g) what sum is estimated to be spent in 1997-98.4976Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Commonwealth's contributions to funding for Western Australia's public hospitals between 1991-92 and 1997-98 are as follows:YearAmount ($m)1991-92360.7811992-93380.1091993-94513.8941994-95519.3521995-96528.0191996-97531.4641997-98(est) 556.616(b) The Western Australian Government's contributions towards funding for the State's public hospitals between 1991-92 and 1997-98 are as follows:YearAmount ($m)1991-92537.0581992-93498.2111993-94422.7281994-95446.7571995-96510.8041996-97595.1181997-98Not available(3) The total sum spent on funding Western Australia's public hospitals between 1991-92 and 1997-98 is as follows:YearAmount ($m)1991-92953.5331992-93940.675 1993-94974.8591994-951,002.7751995-961,074.0591996-971,158.7291997-98Not availableThis information was derived from data on Hospital Services and Total Health Services compiled by the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) for the 1998 Update and excludes capital expenditure.The estimate of Commonwealth expenditure on Hospital Services in 1997-98 was derived from Budget Paper No. 3 Federal Financial Relations 1997-98, Table A2, adjusted to exclude capital expenditure, consistent with the CGC's methodology.4977(Question No. 2645)26454977Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant, and (ii) for what purposes was it provided, and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).4977Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) The Department provided grant funds under the Disability Services Act 1992 to Workright Inc during the specified period. This organisation was originally auspiced through the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, South Australian Branch (ACCI SA) until October 1996, at which time it became separately incorporated as Interwork Ltd.In accordance with Interwork's Constitution, Mr Steven Illman is the ACCI SA's nominated member to the Board of Interwork Ltd. As Board members are voluntary, they do not receive sitting fees. The Department has not provided any funding for expenses or travel claims in respect of Board members. (a) (ii) The purpose of the grant was to provide open employment support to people with a disability across South Australia. The organisation has a number of outposted staff in regions such as the South East, Riverland and Iron Triangle.(b) Grant funds paid to: Workright Inc, 25 March 1996—25 September 1996—$851,385; Interwork Ltd, 25 October 1996—25 March 1998—$2,575,096(2) Mr Mark Paterson, Chief Executive Officer of the ACCI, accepted my invitation to be one of the inaugural subscriber members and directors of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Families and Young People. The Foundation was registered with the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) as a company limited by guarantee on 7 October 1997, and held its first Board meeting in Melbourne on 16-17 October 1997.Under ASC policy, directors of a company limited by guarantee cannot receive sitting fees or any other remuneration except reasonable remuneration for work done for the company with the approval of the Board.(3) Pending disbursement of establishment and seed funding to the Foundation, the Department met the costs of the first Board meeting on a one-off basis. Payments were made on presentation of invoices totalling the costs for accommodation, travel, and catering. It is not possible to provide a breakdown for individual members.4977(Question No. 2718)27184977Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 5 March 1998:(1) Which states have become parties to the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris 1970) since the answer to Question No. 1398 (Hansard , 13 May 1997, page 3439) and when did they deposit their instruments of ratification, acceptance, accession and succession.(2) What changes have been made in the membership of the National Cultural Heritage Committee since the answer to question No. 1398.(3) When did the Minister receive the Committee's proposals for an updated National Cultural Heritage Control List and what action has the Minister taken on the proposals.(4) What assets and liabilities exist in the National Cultural Heritage Fund.(5) For what objects has the Minister (a) granted or (b) refused to grant an export permit under the Protection of Cultural Heritage Act since the answer to question No. 1398.4978Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There has been no change in the states that are party to the Unesco Convention.(2) The following changes have been made in the membership of the National Cultural Heritage Committee:Dr Philip Jones has been appointed as Chairperson with effect from 16 April 1998 in place of Professor Di Yerbury AM, whose term of appointment expired on 13 February 1998;. Mr Graham Morris resigned on 19 March 1997; and. Mr Robert Merritt's term of appointment expired on 13 February 1998.(3) On 7 November 1997. The Minister approved the proposed amendments to the List on 10 December 1997 and subsequently the Department of Communications and the Arts forwarded drafting instructions to the Attorney-General's Department for changes in the relevant regulations.(4) Nil(5) (a) The following export permits have been granted.DescriptionDate GrantedPermanent ExportJohn S. White collection of stamps and covers15.5.97Various fossils20.5.971916 Studebaker Passenger Roadster27.5.97Landau horse-drawn carriage27.5.97400 kg of petrified wood26.6.97250 kg of petrified wood26.6.972,000 kg of petrified wood26.6.97200 kg of petrified wood26.6.9791 fossil marine shells11.5.97Gilt dragon coin24.9.97Rupert Bunny painting3.9.971903 Maxim automobile30.4.97Ammonite in matrix and petrified wood3.7.97Petrified wood and various fossils3.7.97Early Devonian rocks and broken fossils19.6.97 4 Ediacara fossils20.1.98Fossil plant12.8.97Fossils12.8.973 Agnostoid trilobites12.8.9785 Ammonites22.10.97Ian Fairweather painting29.10.9727 pieces of quartzite containing ediacara fauna7.10.97Rough petrified wood9.10.97Collection of Queensland fossils7.10.97Saltwater mangrove lobster fossil29.10.972 bark paintings18.9.97Bark painting7.10.974 eucalyptus bark paintings7.10.97Collection of starfish and crinoids22.9.9745 specimens of cowries22.9.9710 specimens of echinoids22.9.9720 specimens of stromatolites12.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97A document19.8.97Collection of fossils26.9.97Diprotodon material26.9.97250 kg of polished faces in peanut wood9.10.971912 Linde Systems Gas Refrigeration Engine13.10.971900 Bellis & Morcom Steam Engine13.10.97Complete set of horseworks13.10.97Pelton Water Wheel13.10.9710 specimens of trilobites20.1.98 Trilobite27.1.98Cricket memorabilia22.1.98*Cricket memorabilia22.1.98*Cricket memorabilia22.1.98*Cricket memorabilia22.1.98*1Mechanised Coopers machinery (used to make kegs)22.1.98Stone Pug Mill & Cast Iron Pug Mill22.1.9827 original photos of Aborigines2.2.9824 fossil specimens24.10.97Repaired fossil cowrie specimen16.1.98500 fossil wood specimens16.1.98Pissarro painting21.11.9730 fossil cephalopods specimens24.10.97Vampire aircraft16.1.98Fossil bivalve shell19.2.98Various fossil specimens9.2.9810 specimens of plant fossil9.2.986 specimens of ammonite9.2.981,000 kg of Petrified Wood9.2.98Collection of fossil shells from Madura9.2.98Collection of Oligocene and Miocene molluscs9.2.98Collection of Miocene fossil shells9.2.98Aboriginal bark painting and sculpture16.2.982 northeast Qld rainforest shields16.2.9836 Walsh River ammonites3.3.98Reconstructed fossil shell3.3.9810 pieces of henbury meteorite3.3.9820 specimens of trilobite30.4.98Temporary exportStamp collection13.3.976 Aboriginal Paintings21.4.97Stamp exhibit20.5.97 2 stamp exhibits20.5.9712 samples and 24 thin sections of fossilised wood5.3.98Stamp Exhibit20.5.97Stamp Exhibit20.5.97Stamp Exhibit20.5.97Ostracoda (microfossils)31.7.9711 stamp exhibits10.10.97Vampire aircraft16.1.98Town hall organ components22.1.98Two Sidney Nolan paintings30.3.98Certificates of ExemptionVarious Aboriginal art works21.8.97Convict memorabilia16.1.98Eight Russell Drysdale paintings11.3.981 Permits granted to conditions(5) (b) The following objects have been refused export permits.Date RefusedTowner Victoria Cross medals group3 .2.98Victor Trumper signed bat and ball3.2.98Victor Trumper memorabilia3.2.984981(Question No. 2755)27554981McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed. (3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm. (10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirements will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.4982Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Given the complexities and the scope of the question asked, to provide a complete answer would require the Department to allocate considerable time and resources to the task. I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert resources at this time.4982(Question No. 2782)27824982Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to difficulties created by the application procedure for National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants.(2) Is it a fact that with more than 2000 applications expected, the help desk for applications is staffed by two persons; if so, is the staffing adequate.(3) Has his attention been drawn to difficulties in connecting to the NHMRC web site when attempting to submit applications.(4) Will he ensure that researchers are not disqualified or disadvantaged because of problems with the application system; if so, how.(5) Will the application procedure be reviewed.4982Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) An important component of streamlining the NHMRC grants system has been the introduction of electronic grant submission for 1998. The GrantNet system was commissioned in mid-December 1997 for submissions in the 1998 round. GrantNet offers many potential advantages to researchers, institution research offices, the research advisory committees, and the administration of research support provided by the Commonwealth. I am advised that the difficulties attending the introduction of GrantNet were more considerable than it was reasonable to expect for a new computing system of this nature. The Office of the National Health and Medical Research Council regards the resolution of these difficulties as having a very high priority.(2) Approximately 1550 new project grant applications are involved, about the same number as for the previous year. A Help Desk was established, staffed seven days a week and open until midnight during the week. Five people were answering calls during peak periods.(3) There were difficulties in connecting to and using the GrantNet system. These were alleviated to some extent by an arrangement whereby researchers could submit elements of their application by Internet E-mail. Deadlines for submission were extended in response to the difficulties users were experiencing. With the assistance of institutional research offices, all outstanding cases have been identified and are being assisted in lodging their application.(4) Every such application will be accepted, and will be accorded the same peer review process as all other applications. Virtually all applications are now lodged satisfactorily.(5) A GrantNet Review Committee has been established. This committee will be advised by independent experts. With broad terms of reference, the committee has been asked to report on the underlying causes of the problems experienced during implementation of GrantNet in 1998, and advise what steps should be taken to ensure satisfactory functionality and performance for all users in 1999.4982(Question No. 2783)27834982Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth provide the Arthritis Foundation of Western Australia in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(2) What are the details in terms of the number of grants or contracts and the sums involved in each case in each year referred to in part (1).4982Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Nil.(2) Refer to part (1).4983(Question No. 2789)27894983Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 March 1998:(1) Which recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) report on the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws, presented to the House on 20 August 1986, has the Commonwealth implemented (a) in whole or (b) in part and how has each been implemented.(2) Which recommendations has the Commonwealth rejected and why.(3) Which recommendations have the States and Territories implemented.(4) What procedure or other administrative arrangements has the Commonwealth established to process and respond to the ALRC's proposals.(5) Will the he present the Commonwealth's formal response to the ALRC's proposals to the House; if so, when.4983Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In 1994, a report on the implementation of the recommendations of the ALRC Report regarding recognition of Aboriginal customary laws was published entitled Report on Commonwealth Implementation of the Recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission (produced by the Australian Government Publishing Service). The Report documented the approach Commonwealth agencies had taken to the recommendations made in the ALRC Report and outlined the extent to which the Commonwealth had implemented the recommendations to that point.Since that time the ALRC Report has again been considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) as many of its recommendations concern the States and Territories.As part of the SCAG process each jurisdiction has formed preliminary views on the recommendations in the ALRC Report for the purposes of consultation with indigenous communities.Until this process is completed it is not possible to indicate what the final attitude of all jurisdictions might be on the recommendations. 4983(Question No. 2792)27924983Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Does the Minister's Department cooperate with other Commonwealth departments in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954).(2) Does the Minister's Department have to consult with State and Territory governments and agencies in deciding whether Australia is to become a party to the protocol; if so, with which State and Territory governments and agencies has the Minister's Department consulted and on what dates, in what form and with what outcomes.4983Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. A number of Departments have a continuing interest in whether Australia should become a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954), including: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence, the Department of Communications and the Arts and the Attorney-General's Department.(2) Before Australia ratifies any treaty or related instrument, consultation with State and Territory governments is required under the treaty-making process. No such consultations have occurred to date. The question of departmental involvement in any such consultation, should this be necessary, has not arisen.4983(Question No. 2967)29674983Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Has he, a member of his staff or his Department been involved in discussions with employers or employer representatives in the building services industry concerning award simplification; if so, (a) what was the nature of the discussions, (b) when and where were they held and (c) what was the nature of the advice given to employers about building services award and award simplification. (2) Has he received or requested a briefing from his Department on the issues involved, and the pace of award simplification, in the building services award, if so, when (a) was the request made or (b) did his Department provide the briefing.(3) Has he, a member of his staff or his Department involved any external consultants in developing a special policy position on award simplification for the building services award; if so, (a) what processes were used to choose them, (b) who were they and (c) what remuneration did they receive.(4) Has Mr Jeff Woodgate provided advice to him, a member of his staff or his Department on award simplification for the building services award; if so, was Mr Woodgate officially an external consultant or did he provide the advice gratis.(5) Is the 15 per cent part-time loading paid under the building services award an allowable part of the building service workers' hourly wage rates.4984Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(a) On request from the Australian Building Services Association (ABSA), the Department provided advice on the simplification of the Building Services (Victoria) Award 1994 and the Cleaning (Building and Property Services)(ACT) Award 1996.(b) In terms of the Victorian award, a representative from the Department spoke to ABSA and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) by phone on a number of occasions and attended a meeting of representatives of ABSA, VECCI and the Australian Chamber of Manufactures (ACM) on 16 March 1998 in Melbourne.In terms of the ACT award, a representative from the Department spoke to ABSA by phone on a number of occasions.(c) The Departmental representatives advised ABSA, VECCI and the ACM on legislative requirements and the outcomes of the Full Bench Award Simplification Decision (ASD) and its implications for the simplification of the building services awards, eg. in relation to the allowability of various matters, establishment of revised model clauses, and use of facilitative provisions. The Department provided draft rewritten Victorian and ACT awards to ABSA based on this advice.(2) No.(3) No.(4) Mr Jeff Woodgate is an employee of the Department. He provided advice on the simplification of the building services award as described above. The Department provides advice on award simplification to the industrial parties on request as described above in (1) (c).(5) It is up to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to determine the allowability of an award matter and where a matter is allowable the actual form of the relevant award clause.